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: libtlen - Tlen.pl client library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177117 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-07-28 14:06 EST ------- You've said on IRC that you'll add the dist tag, so no worries there. The major issue I see is with the license. The only file I see that actually has a license statement is lib/asciitab.h which is GPL/MPL. The only thing that says LGPL is the sourceforge page, which unfortunately really isn't sufficient. Perhaps I'm just not looking in the proper place, though; am I missing a license statement somewhere? * source files match upstream: b77c0a3234a21d1b79df8a8b9a9b9534 libtlen-20041113.tar.gz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * Prerelease snapshot naming is correct: 0-0.1.20041113 * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. X dist tag is not present. * build root is correct. ? license field matches the actual license. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: libtlen-0-0.1.20041113.x86_64.rpm libtlen.so.1()(64bit) libtlen = 0-0.1.20041113 = /sbin/ldconfig libtlen.so.1()(64bit) libtlen-devel-0-0.1.20041113.x86_64.rpm libtlen-devel = 0-0.1.20041113 = libtlen = 0-0.1.20041113 libtlen.so.1()(64bit) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * shared libraries are present; ldconfig is called as necessary and unversioned .so links are in the -devel package. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel package. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. -- 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