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=472658 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Blocks| |182235(FE-Legal) AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-13 22:07:05 EDT --- It would be nice to get those explanations into the package %description; enlightening me helps (well, theoretically), but enlightening everyone helps more. Builds fine; rpmlint says: shmpps.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 27) Not a big deal; fix it if you like. shmpps.x86_64: W: no-documentation Not a problem. shmpps.x86_64: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/shmpps $prog rpmlint doesn't understand many common idioms in initscripts; you should ignore this. I don't see any value in using "%{__install}" instead of just "install", but if you really want to use macros, you need to use %{__rm} and indeed %{__install_p}. I'm afraid I don't understand the licensing here. Which of the three files in the binary rpm are public domain? Two of the files are supplied by you, and one is a mix of PD and one of the four different licenses the NTP code is under, so I can't see how the resulting binary could possibly be PD. It looks to me like the time_shm and the attach_shm code come from refclock_shm.c, which according to the NTP spec file is under the MIT license, so I think the resulting binary is MIT licensed and nothing in the final package is PD. I've blocked FE-Legal for a double-check, however. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 0c48634e3a5068fb69def61daae44656a5a4cd36f537e0c12b893806df6c5598 shmpps.tar * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. X specfile does not use macros consistently. * summary is OK. X description could use some elaboration. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. X license field does not seem to match the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (none). * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: config(shmpps) = 1.03-1.fc12 shmpps = 1.03-1.fc12 shmpps(x86-64) = 1.03-1.fc12 = /bin/sh /sbin/chkconfig /sbin/service config(shmpps) = 1.03-1.fc12 ntp * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * scriptlets are OK (service registration). * code, not content. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. 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