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=497622 --- Comment #4 from Tim Fenn <fenn@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-05-04 03:24:44 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > rpmlint output: > > apbs.src:53: W: setup-not-quiet > apbs-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. > > - Use "%setup -q" to fix the first warning. > done. > - Your patches are incorrectly named, add a abps- prefix to them. Send the > patches upstream. > done and done. > > MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used > consistently. NEEDSFIX > - You are mixing $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}, which is not allowed. > - Please add comments about why the patches are necessary. > - You can shorten the install section with the hints given above. > - Use the same description as in the review request. The one you have now in > the SPEC is a bit too long and contains unnecessary information (the last two > paragraphs). > done. > > MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. > - Stuff under contrib/ seems to be licensed under LGPLv2+, but nothing seems to > be packaged from there. > the libraries that are built in contrib/ are lumped into libapbs.so* (along with some of the BSD licensed functions) - I've made note of the dual license, is it sufficient/OK to annotate the .so files as "BSD and LGPLv2+" in the %files section and add a PACKAGE-LICENSING file? > > MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect > runtime of application. NEEDSFIX > - Drop INSTALL and NEWS from %doc, include README. > done. Updated files: Spec URL: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/apbs.spec SRPM URL: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/apbs-1.1.0-2.fc10.src.rpm -- 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