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=474802 Nils Philippsen <nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Nils Philippsen <nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-08-03 07:54:38 EDT --- Items marked "GOOD" or "PASS" fulfil the guidelines or they don't apply to this package. Items marked "CHECK" aren't covered by the guidelines but you should check and fix them anyway in my opinion. Items marked "BAD" violate the guidelines in some point and need to be fixed. - GOOD: rpmlint run on vacation-1.2.7.0-5.fc11.src.rpm doesn't flag errors/warnings - GOOD: package name according to guidelines - GOOD: spec file named properly - BAD: package doesn't meet packaging guidelines: the source URL is wrong, it should be "downloads.sourceforge.net/..." (just verified it with spectool) - GOOD: licensed according to licensing guidelines (be it GPLv2 or GPLv2+, see below). - BAD: license in spec file doesn't match license in package, as the licensing in the source tarball isn't really clear: the README file states that it's "under the GPL (see file COPYING in the directory)" which could be construed as "GPLv2 only" (as that is the version shipped) but also "GPLv2+" (as they didn't specify a specific version). Please consult upstream about this, they really should clarify if they mean GPLv2 or GPLv2+ and state it in the source files themselves. BTW, Comment #6 isn't really correct about the original source being incompatible with the GPL as the source files are really under BSD without advertising clause (or MIT), i.e. there is no issue with this being licensed incompatibly, just that we can't be quite sure what license this is under. You can flag it as "GPLv2" in the meantime, just to stay on the safe side. If upstream tells you that it really is "GPLv2+" (as I assume), then include documentation that they did tell you that (e.g. a copy of the mail) in the package documentation when changing it in this version in a future release (this is not necessary if they clarify it in the shipped sources themselves in a future version). - GOOD: license shipped as documentation - GOOD: the spec file is written in American English - GOOD: the spec file is legible - GOOD: sources used to build the package match upstream source - GOOD: builds in mock for x86_64/Rawhide - GOOD: all build dependencies listed - PASS: doesn't ship locale files - PASS: no libraries shipped - GOOD: package is not relocatable - GOOD: all shipped directories owned by package, direct dependency or filesystem - GOOD: no duplicates in %files - GOOD: permissions on files are set properly - GOOD: package has a %clean section - GOOD: package uses macros consistently - GOOD: the package contains code, not content - PASS: no large documentation files - GOOD: %doc doesn't affect runtime - PASS: no header files - PASS: no static libraries - PASS: no pkgconfig files - PASS: no libraries included - PASS: no devel package - GOOD: no *.la libtool archives - PASS: no desktop file - GOOD: doesn't own files or directories owned by other packages - GOOD: build root is cleaned at the beginning of %install - GOOD: all file names are valid UTF-8 - CHECK: from now on, please state in the changelog what you changed (e.g. "- changed license to GPLv2 until licensing is clarified with upstream (#474802)"), just referring to a BZ ticket number doesn't explain it sufficiently. This package is APPROVED, provided that you fix the license tag to "GPLv2" (temporarily, until this is clarified with upstream) and the source URL before importing. -- 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