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=519986 Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |notting@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-08-28 15:06:28 EDT --- MUST items: - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines - OK - Spec file matches base package name. - OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. - OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. - OK - License - *** 1) This package consists of nothing but configuration files and a udev rules file. These are configuration, and not necessarily copyrightable. 2) Spot says "use a permissive license just to be sure." 3) Which implies the BSD in the tarball is OK... 4) except it still states: Copyright (c) The Regents of the University of California. which is almost certainly wrong, in the case that the package *is* copyrightable. Should be Christophe & Martin, or whomever. - License field in spec matches - OK, as it stands - License file included in package - OK - Spec in American English - OK - Spec is legible. - OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 878fd1b6a8baccf0ce46d29f2fde559a40d6573c media-player-id-1.tar.gz OK. - Package needs ExcludeArch - *** Might want 'ExcludeArch: s390 s390x <other similar things>'. But I doubt it matters that much. - BuildRequires correct - OK. - Spec handles locales/find_lang - N/A - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. - OK - Package has a correct %clean section. - OK - Package has correct buildroot - OK %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) - Package is code or permissible content. - OK - Doc subpackage needed/used. - N/A - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. - OK (tested F12) - Package has no duplicate files in %files. - OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. - OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. - OK - No rpmlint output. - OK - final provides and requires are sane: - OK Can we get them to fix the licensing? -- 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