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=502991 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-05 17:25:19 EDT --- Builds fine; rpmlint says the following: erlang-erlsom.x86_64: E: no-binary erlang-erlsom.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib which are normal for erlang packages. The spec does not consistently use macros; in some places, macro-ized forms like "%{__rm}" are used, while elsewhere plain non-macro versions are used. This must be consistent; personally I see no benefit in the extra typing from using "%{__rm}" but you can use what you like. The license is definitely not GPLv2+. Most files seem to be LGPLv3+, but erlsom_sax_lib.erl is GPLv2+. This would seem to imply that the whole is GPLv3+, but you should check with upstream to see what they intend. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 414b342f58ae0d35e612914223fa4b24355ede2f6586a53efbe73791a5dab3e3 erlsom-1.2.1.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named. X specfile does not use macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. X license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: erlsom = 1.2.1-3.fc12 erlang-erlsom = 1.2.1-3.fc12 erlang-erlsom(x86-64) = 1.2.1-3.fc12 = erlang * %check is present, no test suite upstream. I've no idea how to test this. * 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