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=589833 Radek L <radoslaw.lisowski@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |radoslaw.lisowski@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Radek L <radoslaw.lisowski@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-05-07 17:52:00 EDT --- Since I'm not a packager yet, and looking for sponsorship, I've made some review on my own (not commiting of course): $ rpmlint perl-HTTP-Lite-2.2-1.fc14.src.rpm perl-HTTP-Lite.spec 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. No errors neither warnings - ok Package name, spec file name - everything looks ok, and fits guidelines. If it's about license, I've got a little doubt. In spec file there is: "GPL+ or Artistic", which is ok, and fits fedora approved licenses. However on the homepage there is "Perl (Artistic and GPL)", and it's about "and" instead of "or". In LICENSE file included to package, there isn't clearly specified which naming is right, although they're both included and it's more a Notice than an error. More about spec file - it's legible, and written in English. MD5SUM from src.rpm: 149651593132db8f3b06349a67cab77f HTTP-Lite-2.2.tar.gz MD5SUM from upstream: 149651593132db8f3b06349a67cab77f HTTP-Lite-2.2.tar.gz Builds well, according to Koji logs, and tested on my system. It's not depending on arch, so any issues connected with it doesn't affect on 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