[Bug 197764] Review Request: hfsplus-tools

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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: hfsplus-tools


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197764





------- Additional Comments From panemade@xxxxxxxxx  2006-07-06 23:51 EST -------
== Not an official review as I'm not yet sponsored ==
   Mock build for development i386 is sucessfull with some warnings 
SBTree.c: In function 'SearchBTreeRecord': SBTree.c:96: warning: pointer targets
in passing argument 1 of 'DebugStr' differ in signedness

* MUST Items:
     - MUST: rpmlint on binary RPM shows error. 
       W: hfsplus-tools invalid-license Apple Public Source License
       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'.

    W: hfsplus-tools no-documentation
    The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc).
    You have to include documentation files.

     - 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 hfsplus-tools, in the
format hfsplus-tools.spec.
      - MUST: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. md5sum is correct (2a707860a8e81308777afd5a821eec07)
      - 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.
      - 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


You Need to do :
       Add Documentation files and also package must conatain Open source License.

-- 
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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]