https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1162076
Mihkel Vain <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Mihkel Vain <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Lubomir Rintel from comment #2) > (In reply to Mihkel Vain from comment #1) > > Ok. > > > > A few notes first. > > > > > Group: Amusements/Games > > > > This is not required anymore, unless you plan to target EL5 > > > > > %doc %{_docdir}/tuxanci-%{version} > > > > I think you should include bundled README, LICENSE and AUTHORS file in doc > > like this: > > > > > %doc README LICENSE AUTHORS > > > > No need for %{_docdir}/tuxanci-%{version} under %files section > > Why? Upstream install tool copies it there. > Whoops. Sorry about that :) > > tuxanci.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address > > /usr/share/doc/tuxanci-0.21.0/LICENCE > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address > > > > You must inform upstream about that, but I think this is not a blocker > > either. > > Done. This package has a license that is acceptable for fedora, rpmlint is more or less happy and spec file looks good to me. I'd say this package is APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
