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=523553 --- Comment #10 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michael.silvanus@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-09-24 19:03:38 EDT --- ReviewTemplate MUST ? rpmlint source clean. binary not produced due to errors. OK package name OK spec file name OK package guideline-compliant ? license complies with guidelines complies with guidelines, yes. However, I recall a discussion in -devel about the licensing of Fedora Infrastructure projects.These are supposed to be LGPLv2+ for libraries and GPLv2+ for applications. Yours most likely is not bound by these guidelines, and should the infrastructure team decide to use mutrace, they can (the combination becomes GPLv3+), so this is up to you. OK license field accurate OK license file not deleted OK spec in US English OK spec legible FIX source matches upstream $ sha1sum mutrace-0.1.tar.gz ../SOURCES/mutrace-0.1.tar.gz dcb16f9a80262cb608f641ee5c960b15def6ad83 mutrace-0.1.tar.gz 6017fc40158663eeffec4c70ba69cf04cde11ef2 ../SOURCES/mutrace-0.1.tar.gz Looks like the source in the SRPM is old: -rw-rw-r--. 1 michel michel 339432 2009-09-22 00:09 mutrace-0.1.tar.gz -rw-rw-r--. 1 michel michel 328641 2009-09-15 18:20 ../SOURCES/mutrace-0.1.tar.gz OK builds under >= 1 archs, others excluded rpmbuild -bb attempted on x86_64 (see also "no dupes in %files") FIX build dependencies complete missing binutils-devel OK library -> ldconfig OK own all directories FIX no dupes in %files no dupes, but some unpackaged files: %{_libdir}/libmatrace.so and libmutrace-backtrace-symbols.so OK permission OK %clean RPM_BUILD_ROOT OK macros used consistently OK Package contains code NA large docs => -doc NA doc not runtime dependent OK clean buildroot before install OK filenames UTF-8 SHOULD FIX if license text missing, ask upstream to include it corresponding GPL license text not included FIX package build in mock on all architectures not using mock yet, BR problem OK package functioned as described FIX require package not files require util-linux-ng rather than /usr/bin/getopt ? -- 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