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=524437 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-09-22 18:53:47 EDT --- Builds fine and rpmlint is silent. You have "License: GPLv2" but nowhere do I see a version of the GPL specified. According to the GPL text itself (section 9) we can choose any version we like. This means that the license is GPL+. Or do you see any language in the code or documentation which specifies "version 2 only"? BTW, if you're going to require a recent rpm by leaving out BuildRoot:, you might as well drop the rpm -rf at the start of %install. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: a0f95ec12eb2a986774bf7f6738925ccb9ee588ae99d1fa7a771bd1d07676ab1 nss_updatedb.tgz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. X license field does not seem to match the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: nss_updatedb = 10-1.fc12 nss_updatedb(x86-64) = 10-1.fc12 = libdb-4.7.so()(64bit) * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directory it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package reviews recently, please consider doing one. -- 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