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=492996 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-01 15:57:14 EDT --- The URL in the spec doesn't seem related. Can you indicate where you get a license of "Freely redistributable without restriction"? The only place I can see any indication of a license is in SpecialRenameuser.php and it says GPLv2+. The upstream web site says "unspecified". I think it's reasonable to assume that GPLv2+ applies to all five php files since they're distributed together. It would be nice to query the author about inserting proper license notices as suggested by the GPL. Also note that in any case, "Freely distributable without restriction" is not sufficiently free for code in Fedora. We need the right to modify as well. The README.fedora file mentions InputBox twice. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: d791117c556ad9af35dc51dbac815ef129e507fcad30db9740bbaa3108bb4f59 RenameUserJob.php 0f73d6727b396dfae1b3fd3126763e74fda852a70204a5d6b98815b3db6d9987 SpecialRenameuser.alias.php 217a14bf162a32a2276b68f4e84ae820711943f259fa4ccb245e535f3aa9a3b1 SpecialRenameuser_body.php b952cb8b5dd7a636faae2ec15945db877a07ee26b3faf35932c2b59488a20b5a SpecialRenameuser.i18n.php 0220b4877670f5bc88a2b76e34ff677b44864a3424d4a4ec80ec82e7ef8aafcb SpecialRenameuser.php * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. X license field does not match the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. * BuildRequires are proper (none, as there * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: mediawiki-Renameuser = 0-0.1.20090331svn.fc11 = mediawiki >= 1.14 * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package reviews recently, please consider doing one. -- 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