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=226231 --- Comment #4 from Michal Hlavinka <mhlavink@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-12-16 06:33:43 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > 1) rpmlint *.spec *.src.rpm noarch/* > > > > passivetex.spec: W: no-%build-section > > passivetex.src: W: no-%build-section > > 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings > > > > please add %build section even if empty > > Fixed - added empty build section.. usually it's expected to have %build section between %prep and %install verified > > > 2)What is the LPPL license based on? It seems it should be "Copyright only" ( > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/CopyrightOnly ) > > Changed to Copyright only - it was probably based on other distros... verified > > 3)Source link is not valid > > > > $ wget http://www.tei-c.org.uk/Software/passivetex/passivetex-1.25.zip > > --2009-12-10 18:37:32-- > > http://www.tei-c.org.uk/Software/passivetex/passivetex-1.25.zip > > Resolving www.tei-c.org.uk... 163.1.2.156 > > Connecting to www.tei-c.org.uk|163.1.2.156|:80... connected. > > HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 404 Not Found > > 2009-12-10 18:37:32 ERROR 404: Not Found. > > Correct link is http://www.tei-c.org.uk/Software/passivetex/passivetex.zip - so > added only as a comment... I'm getting : """ Connecting to www.tei-c.org.uk|163.1.2.156|:80... failed: Connection timed out. Retrying. """ will retry later > > 4) 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 - for example bug number > > * upstream information - was it sent upstream (and when)? taken from upstream? > > was it accepted/rejected? is this patch "fedora specific" ? > > Info added, 5 years old patch, no connected bugzilla, upstream is dead ... and > will never be alive again... verified > > 5) wrong buildroot tag > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag > > > > """The BuildRoot value MUST be below %{_tmppath}/ and MUST contain at least > > %{name}, %{version} and %{release}""" > > > > The recommended values for the BuildRoot tag is > > > > %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) > > > > Btw, if used only for Fedora 10+, there's no need to define BuildRoot tag at > > all: > > > > """The RPM in Fedora 10 defines a default buildroot so in Fedora 10 and above > > it is no longer necessary to define a buildroot tag.""" > > Fixed verified > and built as passivetex-1.25-11.fc13. I'm waiting for upstream's web page getting back online. If the link is correct, I'll approve this review -- 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