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=226546 --- Comment #3 from Ondrej Vasik <ovasik@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-11-27 11:54:25 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > - MUST(4): The License field in spec match the actual license Ok, used LGPLv2+ instead of LGPLv2 > - MUST(6): The sources used to build the package must match the upstream > source, as provided in the spec URL Must be some kind of alumnit temporary shutdown, I downloaded new version of wvdial (1.61) from there ~2 weeks ago... > Comments: > > 1) Checking RPM_BUILD_ROOT != / is not necessary > > per Packaging Guidelines ( > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean ): > > In the past, some packages checked that %{buildroot} was not / before deleting it. This is not necessary in Fedora, .... > > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is enough Ok, changed... > 2) %attr in %files section is used too much > > %attr(0755,root,root) %{_bindir}/* > %attr(0644,root,root) %{_mandir}/man1/* > %attr(0644,root,root) %{_mandir}/man5/* > > these are default permissions, thus not required to explicitly add there Ok, removed... > 3) too much wildcards under %files section > > If upstream makes some changes in tarball and add/remove some files, this is > not going to catch anything. It's good practice to list at least all files > under %{_bindir}. This will let you know if there is any new/missing one. files under %{_bindir} and man pages listed more specifically. > 4) License > > There is no license info in the package except COPYING - LGPL. This means > License tag should be set to LGPLv2+ > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing : > > """A GPL or LGPL licensed package that lacks any statement of what version that > it's licensed under in the source code/program output/accompanying docs is > technically licensed under *any* version of the GPL or LGPL, not just the > version in whatever COPYING file they include. Note that this is LGPLv2+, not > LGPL+, because version 2 was the first version of LGPL.""" Ok, changed LGPLv2 to LGPLv2+ > 5) Versioned requires ( > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requires ) > > > First, if the lowest possible requirement is so old that nobody has a version older than that installed on any target distribution release, there's no need to include the version in the dependency at all. In that case we know the available software is new enough. For example, the version in gtk+-devel 1.2 dependency above is unnecessary for all Red Hat Linux distributions since (at least) release 6.2. As a rule of thumb, if the version is not required, don't add it just for fun. > > all 'ppp' versions (even in old RHELs) are newer than version specified, please > remove it Removed versioned requires... > 6)Url and Source0 links does not work > > wget http://alumnit.ca/download/wvdial-1.61.tar.gz > --2009-11-27 16:16:56-- http://alumnit.ca/download/wvdial-1.61.tar.gz > Resolving alumnit.ca... 69.196.152.118 > Connecting to alumnit.ca|69.196.152.118|:80... failed: Connection refused. > > > wget 'http://alumnit.ca/wiki/?WvDial' > --2009-11-27 16:17:30-- http://alumnit.ca/wiki/?WvDial > Resolving alumnit.ca... 69.196.152.118 > Connecting to alumnit.ca|69.196.152.118|:80... failed: Connection refused. I guess it is temporary issue... we'll see on Monday... > 7) Missing info for patches > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment > > Every patch in spec file should contain a comment describing: > * why is that patch used - bug number is enough > * upstream information - was it sent upstream (and when)? taken from upstream? > was it accepted/rejected? is this patch "fedora specific" ? I added the informations why the patch is used with bug numbers/short comments. Some patches - like remotename and 9nums are Fedora specific. Compuserve patch is just change to use more new Compuserve style (which increases the chance of succesful connection). That one wvdial.conf manpage patch - I don't know, I'll try to submit it once the website will be up. Anyway the package is not really "alive" - current update was just to fix issues with new gcc/glibc. Fixed in rawhide ... wvdial-1.61-2.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review