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=491581 Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-30 13:23:09 EDT --- Fedora review jVorbisEnc-0.1-2.fc10.src.rpm 2009-04-30 rpmlint output: [ellert@ellert jVorbisEnc]$ rpmlint 5310124110877769772196/result/jVorbisEnc/*.rpm jVorbisEnc.spec jVorbisEnc.src:97: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name} jVorbisEnc.x86_64: W: no-documentation jVorbisEnc.spec:97: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name} 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. * OK ! needs attention * rpmlint warnings are bogus - rpmlint does not understand the conditional BuildArch. * Package is named according to the guidelines * The specfile is named after the package * The package follows the guidelines for a native Java package. Disabling the broken AOT bits for ppc64 makes sense, and a bug report is filed. * Package license is Fedora approved (BSD) ! The sources say: "THIS LIBRARY SOURCE IS GOVERNED BY A BSD-STYLE SOURCE LICENSE INCLUDED WITH THIS SOURCE IN 'COPYING'", but there is no COPYING file in the source tree! This is strange... Did upstream make a mistake creating the source tarfile? Also - one (and only one) of all the source files (src/biniu/vorbis/AllocChain.java) says it is LGPL. Is this an oversight from upstream, or is it intentional? This too seems strange. If this one source file really is LGPL, I don't think you can release the package as BSD, since LGPL is more restrictive and the most restrictive license "wins". But it seems strange that the licensing of the package should depend on a single source file containing 5 lines of code (excluding comments and empty lines). Is upstream aware of this bizarre situation? * There is no license file, and hence it can not be installed as %doc * The specfile is written in legible English * Sources matches upstream: 8476478045d6f7c0114272bc8bab97e1 jVorbisEnc_src.zip 8476478045d6f7c0114272bc8bab97e1 SRPM/jVorbisEnc_src.zip * Package builds in mock (Fedora 10) * BuildRequires are sane * No shared libraries * Package owns the directories it creates * No duplicate files * Permissions are sane and %files has %defattr * %clean clears buildroot * Consistent use of macros * Documentation in -javadoc package * Package does not own other's directories * %install clears buildroot * Installed filenames are valid UTF-8 -- 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