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=507299 --- Comment #10 from Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-08-10 18:48:37 EDT --- > Perhaps mobile-broadband-provider-info should be added to the "BuildRequires" > list. It does include the package as BuildRequires. The problem is that the build of that package removes the pkgconfig during the build process and that is what its looking for. There is a bug filed which blocks this package in bugzilla. > In the meantime, I did a preliminary review of the spec file and found a few > issues/questions: > > > 1) * MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual > license. > > License: GPLv2+ > > but the COPYING file in the latest source RPM explicitly states "Version 3": > > GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE > Version 3, 29 June 2007 Actually no its not. The COPYING file in the source package is actually a symbolic link to /usr/share/automake-1.10/COPYING so what your seeing is likely that file in your local file system. I've sent an email to the mailing list for a license clarification. See here http://mail.gnome.org/archives/networkmanager-list/2009-August/msg00084.html > 2) * MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream > source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. > If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL > Guidelines for how to deal with this. > > I think the comment and URL field in the spec should be: > > # git clone git://git.gnome.org/network-manager-netbook > > URL: http://git.gnome.org/cgit/network-manager-netbook/ Copy and paste error. Will be fixed in the next srpm. > 3) * MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. > libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in > a -devel package. > > There are library files with a suffix in the files list, but no -devel package. > Should one be added? I'll review this and update as appropriate. > 4) * MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop > file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the > %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need > a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. > > I believe this needs to be added to the spec file. The gui is a applet so I don't think it needs one. I'll look further as there's possibly a configuration gui too. -- 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