Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481322 --- Comment #2 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-27 14:48:00 EDT --- MUST items: - rpmlint output: emacs-magit-el.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. - package name: follows Emacs-specific guidelines - spec file name matches base package name: OK - packaging guidelines: OK - approved Fedora license: OK - License field matches actual license: FAIL The file magit.el includes the "or later" phrase, so the license is actually GPLv3+, not GPLv3. Furthermore, the info file contains a declaration that it is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2 or any later version. Therefore, the License field should read "GPLv3+ and GFDL+". The guidelines strongly encourage you to separate the info file into a separate subpackage, so that each can have a single license, but I will not insist on this. - File containing license should be in %doc: FAIL. You must add COPYING to the %doc line in the spec file. Why is that empty, by the way? I suggest also adding AUTHORS, ChangeLog, NEWS, and README to the %doc line. - spec file in American English: OK - spec file is legible: OK - source URL guidelines: FAIL Please see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL. In short, you need to add a comment saying how to produce the source tarball. See the section entitled "Using Revision Control". - builds on at least one arch: OK - appropriate use of ExcludeArch: OK - complete BuildRequires: FAIL The use of autoreconf triggers an invocation of automake. Since automake Requires autoconf, you can simply replace "autoconf" with "automake" on the BuildRequires line. - locale handling: OK - use of ldconfig: OK - relocatable package: OK - own all created directories: OK - no duplicate %files entries: OK - proper file permissions: OK - %clean section: OK - consistent use of macros: OK - code or permissible content: OK - large documentation files: OK - %doc files not needed at runtime: OK - header files in -devel: OK - static libraries in -static: OK - Requires pkgconfig: OK - .so files in -devel: OK - devel packages require base package: OK - no .la archives: OK - desktop file: OK - do not own files/directories created by other packages: OK - clean build root before installing: OK - filenames are valid UTF-8: OK SHOULD items: - query upstream for license text: the tarball includes the text of GPLv3 in COPYING, but does not include the GFDL text that I can see. Please ask upstream to include it in future releases. - include available translations: OK - package builds in mock: OK - package builds on all supported architectures: DID NOT CHECK - package functions as described: MINIMAL TESTING ONLY - sane scriptlets: OK - subpackages require the base package: OK - pkgconfig files in -devel: OK - file dependencies: OK Finally, just a note that you can replace "-n %{name}-el" with just "el" in the %package, %description, and %files lines where it appears. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review