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=526041 --- Comment #12 from Alan Pevec <apevec@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-09-29 10:45:50 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > - %description should end with a dot Yes, that's usual, but I don't see it in guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Summary_and_description so I couldn't complain, it's not MUST > - use %global instead of %define > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/global_preferred_over_define it's a draft suggestion, not MUST > - license is completely unclear: Is this GPLv2 or GPLv2+? How about a COPYING > file or license headers in the files? not all, but files under luci/lib/ do have clear license headers: # This program is free software; you can redistribute # it and/or modify it under the terms of version 2 of the # GNU General Public License as published by the # Free Software Foundation. Also luci/templates/footer.html is clear: Distributed under the <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/GPL/2.0/";>GNU GPL v2 license</a>. So it's exactly GPLv2 as stated in spec, there isn't "or higher" clause to allow GPLv2+ I have already suggested off-line to the packager=upstream maintainer to include LICENSE file into tarball to make it completely clear. > - any reason not to use %defattr(-,root,root,-) as we usually do? Not that it > really matters... yeah, setup.py creates correct permissions, but not blocking issue > - timestamps don't match: Source0 in the srpm is > 28. Sep 15:27, while the one from the url is 15:33. Timestamps should match, > see > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps md5sum is important which is fine, guideline says "consider" > /me knows he is pedantic, but we must not ship this until at least the license > question is answered. I don't see why do you think that GPLv2 license is not clear? -- 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