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=529496 --- Comment #19 from Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-12 11:56:52 EST --- (In reply to comment #18) > No reviewer will approve a src.rpm that gives 404 Not Found already for the > source tarball. Again, I don't know what you are talking about: % spectool -g libmtag.spec “./libmtag-0.3.2.tar.gz” saved > And with a manual download by visiting the web page, the result is: [...] > That's something you do need to fix, because so far it doesn't demonstrate that > you know your stuff. [...] That's 200 words just to say "update the SRPM". An SRPM is essentially a .spec + a tarball. The spec is the same posted since the beginning, and the tarball was released as mentioned in comment #11. But if you want me to do 'rpmbuild -bs libmtag.spec', ok, will do. [...] > [Applying the LGPL] > > > * The text says 'library', and I often have to change it to 'program' > > * If the FSF changes their address (again), all the notices > [snip] > > That's splitting-hairs again. The tarball in the src.rpm, which is presented > for review, does not mention the licensing at all. That's the worst-case. Not "is presented"; "was presented". > You were pointed at Fedora's guidelines about that. You refused to include the > license terms in the tarball, That's a lie. I never refused to do that. > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > and you refused to acknowledge the licensing in the source files (three files > only at present). That link mentions the license in it's own file, which was fixed upstream, as recommended: http://github.com/felipec/libmtag/blob/master/LICENSE > However, in 0.3.2 upstream tarball, without mentioning it here, you added a > one-line licensing header to the source files nevertheless. Some sort of > compromise. That's not the best you could have done, but it's a beginning. It was clearly mentioned in comment #10. Also mentioned was the full addition of LGPLv2 text in the "LICENSE" file. > [compiler warnings] > > > WTF are you talking about? > > About strange/superfluous comments that only confuse matters. One can really > get lost in all your excuses, such as the one about too much noise in compiler > output. You can fill pages with ramblings about stuff you don't like to do, and > at the end still all that will be important is to provide a src.rpm that > actually fixes issues and will pass review. If you are not able to receive constructive criticism just ignore it. [...] > > Now, if you do want me to comment on the lack of documentation > > of the 'tools' package, I would rather remove it. > > That would be an option. Since it seems to be the easiest, I'll do it. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review