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=563598 Mathieu Bridon <bochecha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|182235(FE-Legal) | Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Mathieu Bridon <bochecha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-02-14 06:47:52 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) > Both of these two files in question seem to contain this note, so sticking with > MIT should be fitting, no? > > # As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you > # distribute this file as part of a program that contains a > # configuration script generated by Autoconf, you may include it under > # the same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program. You're right, I hadn't seen this notice :-/ Sorry about the confusion, unblocking FE-Legal. +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing MUST Items: [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/sugar-settings-manager-* 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint SPECS/sugar-settings-manager.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. => MIT [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. $ sha1sum sugar-settings-manager-0.87.2.tar.gz 7d0ce6b2dbffbb1b83f5ce4971c38b448dbb46fa sugar-settings-manager-0.87.2.tar.gz $ sha1sum SOURCES/sugar-settings-manager-0.87.2.tar.gz 7d0ce6b2dbffbb1b83f5ce4971c38b448dbb46fa SOURCES/sugar-settings-manager-0.87.2.tar.gz [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [+] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. => not applicable [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. => not applicable [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. => I rebuilt it in Koji to be 100% sure the DSO link change didn't affect the package: => http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1985386 This package is APPROVED. -- 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