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=500013 Matej Cepl <mcepl@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(felix@xxxxxxxxxx) --- Comment #3 from Matej Cepl <mcepl@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-05-29 11:16:22 EDT --- + GOOD: rpmlint is silent on both source and binary package. + GOOD: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . + GOOD: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + GOOD: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines . ? UNEASY: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . I would feel much better if you mentioned somehwere (specfile, copyright statements in the source code) explicit permission to package it in Fedora from http://dansguardian.org/?page=copyright2: * freely (no cost) downloadable from this site for general purpose unix distributions like FreeBSD, Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu, etc Otherwise we could look like changing software's license without author's permission. + GOOD: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. see the previous point, it is correct as of now; it would have to be changed, if license files are not changed, or changed in different way. - BAD: LICENSE file is in %doc. It isn't ... COPYING file that is. + GOOD: The spec file is written in American English. + GOOD: The spec file for the package is legible. + GOOD: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. 68c8e9a97a3b58d2467a19cb15db5599 + GOOD: The package successfully compiles and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Koji scratch build is http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1383216 + GOOD: builds on all architectures + GOOD: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. (builds in koji) + GOOD: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. No locale support. + GOOD: no libraries + GOOD: not relocatable + GOOD: A package owns all directories that it creates. + GOOD: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. + GOOD: Permissions on files must be set properly. + GOOD: Each package have a %clean section. + GOOD: Each package consistently use macros. + GOOD: The package contains code, or permissable content. + GOOD: No large documentation files, so no a -doc subpackage. + GOOD: Files registered in %doc does not affect the runtime of the application. + GOOD: No header files. + GOOD: No static libraries. + GOOD: No pkgconfig(.pc) files. + GOOD: The package does not contain library files with a suffix. + GOOD: No devel packages. + GOOD: No .la libtool archives. + GOOD: Packages does not contain GUI applications. + GOOD: Packages does not own files or directories owned by other packages. + GOOD: Runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install + GOOD: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. + GOOD: Includes license text. Please fix or explain above show issues. -- 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