https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374948
Michal Ruprich <mruprich(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |needinfo?(athmanem(a)gmail.co
| |m)
--- Comment #6 from Michal Ruprich <mruprich(a)redhat.com> ---
Hi Athmane,
there are some more issues mentioned in the review. I will repeat them here:
[!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
##Described below
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 309 files have unknown license.
##1. All the files need to be licensed under the same license that is
specified in the spec file (or a combination of licenses)
##2. I am not able to include this in Fedora until the binary blob is
permitted by owner and licensed under Fedora permissible license
(but you mentioned that in the beginning)
##3. the comment about 309 files without license i because there are
no license(s) texts in each file
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
##Mentioned above
[!]: Package functions as described.
##From my point of view I am unable to test this - I would need a
working cisco router iso image and those are proprietary and not
available, but I may be wrong
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
##Add the check section if possible
Please have a look at these. Thanks
Michal
--
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