Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: optipng - a PNG optimizer and converter - need a Sponsor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197732 ------- Additional Comments From panemade@xxxxxxxxx 2006-07-06 01:16 EST ------- Ok i search your website and found that SRPM. == Not an official review as I'm not yet sponsored == * Mock build for development i386 is sucessfull MUST Items: - MUST: rpmlint shows error as rpmlint -i optipng-0.5.2-1.src.rpm W: optipng invalid-license zlib/libpng The license you specified is invalid. The valid licenses are: -GPL -LGPL -Artistic -BSD -MIT -QPL -MPL -IBM Public License -Apache License -PHP License -Public Domain -Modified CNRI Open Source License -zlib License -CVW License -Ricoh Source Code Public License -Python license -Vovida Software License -Sun Internet Standards Source License -Intel Open Source License -Jabber Open Source License if the license is close to an existing one, you can use '<license> style'. ==>You Need provide package with Open Source Licenses Mentioned above. Though you have provided zlib/libpng and zlib is present, you can ignore this warning. - MUST: dist tag is present - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. - MUST: The spec file name matching the base package optipng, in the format optipng.spec - MUST: This package meets the Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license zlib/libpng. - MUST: License file License.txt is included in package. - MUST: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. md5sum is correct (8cc507e596c95ee44621f7adc8ce0534). - MUST: This package owns all directories that it creates. - MUST: This package did not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. - MUST: This package have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. - MUST: This package used macros. - MUST: Document files are included like README.txt. - MUST: Package did NOT contained any .la libtool archives. * Source URL is present and working. * BuildRoot is correct BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * BuildRequires is correct -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review