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=515308 Bastien Nocera <bnocera@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Bastien Nocera <bnocera@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-08-04 06:40:27 EDT --- X source files doesn't match upstream. sha256sum: ada66b3f8dd297c8b3e97666240672194e46b409f7ecd4676bdd75fe67ae431f usbmuxd-0.1.2.tar.gz 2d7092588dcb69b3f96133fc8a39c9668a82e54c4ea4c4de9e9a061802fd972e usbmuxd-0.1.2.tar.gz should be fixed by using 0.1.3 * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. X license field does not match the actual license. Some files are missing any license information, src/usbmux.h is under the LGPL, would be better if upstream added a COPYING.LIB as well and a mention of which licenses which parts of the code have (LGPL for libs, and GPL for the daemon I would guess) * license is open source-compatible. X latest version is being packaged. Need to package 0.1.3, best wait until udev startup problems are solved. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in koji. * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane. * %check is not present; included test suite can't be run at build time. * shared libraries installed: ldconfig is called properly. unversioned .so link is in the -devel package. * 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. * scriptlets are OK (ldconfig). * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel package. * pkgconfig files are in the -devel package, with pkgconfig dependency. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. Please fix the license problems, udev integration, and package up the latest version before committing. -- 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