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=510668 Christian Krause <chkr@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #19 from Christian Krause <chkr@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-09-19 15:30:06 EDT --- I've reviewed the latest package: (In reply to comment #17) > Yay! Finally! I'm very sorry for the delay > > (In reply to comment #13) > > > > * naming: TODO > > - name matches upstream > > - spec file name matches package name > > - snapshot release tag (assuming it is a post-release snapshot) should contain > > the date (the svnrev can be appended, but the date is required) > > ( according to > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages ) > > > > Added Ok. > > * License: TODO > > - the package contains sources under the GPLv2, too: > > src/import/pmidi/except.c (GPLv2 as published), most likely this means > > that the complete package must be released as GPLv2 > > - the source package (and the built binary package) contain lots of examples > > and so it is necessary to check their legal status - in the worst case they > > must not only be stripped out from the binary but also from the sources - do > > you have any information whether they are distributable? > > - license file packaged: if the final package would be GPLv2, then we should > > not package GPLv1 > > > > I removed the midi and the xml files which have unclear licenses. Also removed > a can file with bad license. I created a new tarball and gave the instructions. > Upstream told me the program itself is GPLv2. Ok. Very minor glitch which will not hold the review: The comments about re-packaging the tarball are not consistent with respect to the SVN revision. The line with "wget" refers to release R1174. ;-) > > * Locales handling: TODO > > The package contains language files in a non-gettext format (*.qm files). > > Is it necessary to add them also via the %lang(xx) tag? > > > > Yes, we do this with qt applications. For instance, I was asked in the past > explicitly to mark the .qm files as %lang(xx) for qjackctl and qsynth Ok. (In reply to comment #18) > I fixed the compilation flags issue: Ok. > Spec URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/canorus.spec > SRPM URL: > http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/canorus-0.7-4.R1177.20090904svn.fc11.src.rpm All reported issues were fixed. I've done again a very small functional test and the main functions of the program seems to be working reasonable well. -> APPROVED -- 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