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=557948 Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |182235(FE-Legal) --- Comment #3 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2010-01-24 05:21:12 EST --- I'm going to sponsor Eric, here's a verbose review: rpmlint output is clean. MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK - Be sure to check for older reviews on the review queue, first (or that if the package already is in Fedora). MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. OK - Spec files are legible, no mixing of styles ($RPM_BUILD_ROOT vs %{buildroot}), macro usage is sane. MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK - Naming guidelines state that Python libraries must be named python-foo, unless the name is pyfoo or Pyfoo. MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. NEEDSWORK - Nothing in the tarball actually specifies a license or defines the code to be in the public domain. - All I can find is License: UNKNOWN in PKG-INFO. - Upstream needs to add a license statement in the tarball before this package can be approved. MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. NEEDSWORK - Source URL is malformed: $ spectool -g PyAIML.spec (clip) 2010-01-24 12:08:58 (117 KB/s) - “./index.html” saved [65180/65180] - Source URL does not adhere to source URL guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL - Correct Source URL is http://downloads.sourceforge.net/pyaiml/PyAIML%20%28unstable%29/PyAIML-%{version}.tar.bz2 MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK - As Eric stated in comment #1, be more verbose in %files since you might miss if the egg is not built for some reason or another. MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK MUST: Clean section exists. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. ~OK - You could add TODO.txt to %doc. MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. NEEDSWORK - No license file is included, please ask upstream to include one. SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK **** The source URL and egg stuff are minor issues. The license issue is bigger: there is no license specified, so we can't include this in Fedora - blocking FE-LEGAL. If upstream e.g. adds in README.TXT (or in the comment of the source code files) a statement "This code is in the public domain." everything would be OK. However, the latest (unstable!) release has been in 2004, so I don't have high hopes of this happening... -- 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