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=518447 Michel Alexandre Salim <michael.silvanus@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michael.silvanus@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-08-21 18:57:13 EDT --- MUST • rpmlint source: clean binary: $ rpmlint moblin-panel-myzone-0.0.1-1.fc11.src.rpm moblin-panel-myzone.src: E: description-line-too-long The Moblin mutter panel for MyZone. MyZone allows you to see that status of friends on 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Description needs Emacs M-q-ing • package name: OK • spec file name: OK • package guideline-compliant: OK • license complies with guidelines: OK • license field accurate: This is questionable. Unlike some other moblin-panel packages, the only C file in this package does not have a license header. Thus it cannot be possible to determine, per se, whether it's GPLv2 strict or v2+. From precedence, we can guess v2+, but could you prod upstream to add the missing header and/or write a clarification in README ? • license file not deleted: OK • spec in US English: OK • spec legible: OK • source matches upstream: OK (MD5 sum: 4f7bfb14fa11d183c5cd0e150ed51806) • builds under >= 1 archs, others excluded: OK (Koji) • build dependencies complete: OK (Koji) • locales handled using %find_lang, no %{_datadir}/locale: OK • library -> ldconfig: MUSTFIX This package ships some shared libraries, so ldconfig must be called on post and postun • own all directories: OK • no dupes in %files: OK • permission: OK • %clean RPM_BUILD_ROOT: OK • macros used consistently: OK • Package contains code: OK • headers in -devel: OK • devel requires versioned base package: OK • clean buildroot before install: OK • filenames UTF-8: OK SHOULD • package build in mock on all architectures: OK (Koji) • package functioned as described: so says Peter :) • scriplets are sane: OK • require package not files: OK ================================= So basically there's a license thing that's not urgent, but probably worth noting somewhere, the description formatting issue, and ldconfig. -- 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