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=518450 Michel Alexandre Salim <michael.silvanus@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michael.silvanus@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-08-21 16:44:52 EDT --- The only other problem is with the license file (see note within the review). MUST • package name: OK • spec file name: OK • package guideline-compliant: OK • license complies with guidelines: OK • license field accurate: • license file not deleted Note: bundled license file is inaccurate (LGPL, not GPL). Contact upstream developers? The source file headers all refer to GPLv2+ so I'm assuming that's the correct one • spec in US English: OK • spec legible: OK • source matches upstream: OK • builds under >= 1 archs, others excluded: OK (Koji) • build dependencies complete: OK (Koji) • locales handled using %find_lang, no %{_datadir}/locale: OK • own all directories: OK • no dupes in %files: OK • permission: OK • %clean RPM_BUILD_ROOTL OK • macros used consistently: OK • Package contains code: OK • clean buildroot before install: OK • filenames UTF-8: OK SHOULD • if license text missing, ask upstream to include it Not missing in this case, but inaccurate (worse?) • package build in mock on all architectures: OK • package functioned as described Not tested yet • scriplets are sane: OK • require package not files: OK -- 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