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 #13 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-09-29 12:25:07 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12) > (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 That's why I used the word *should*. > > - use %global instead of %define > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/global_preferred_over_define > > it's a draft suggestion, not MUST I didn't say it's a MUST ether. > > - 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. OK, I didn't see or grep those. My fault. > Also luci/templates/footer.html is clear: > Distributed under the <a > href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/GPL/2.0/";>GNU GPL v2 license</a>. Sorry, but this does not mean a lot, because you still cannot distinguish between GPLv2 and GPLv2+ with it. There is no "or any later version" that could be linked. > So it's exactly GPLv2 as stated in spec, there isn't "or higher" clause to > allow GPLv2+ Agreed. > I have already suggested off-line to the packager=upstream maintainer to > include LICENSE file into tarball to make it completely clear. As it is a SHOULD thing in the review guidelines it should be mentioned here. off-line communication makes a review non-transparent. > > - 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" Again I said *should*, especially as he have a very uncommon situation here (Source in srpm newer than from URL) > I don't see why do you think that GPLv2 license is not clear? Because I didn't see those headers. Again, my bad. -- 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