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=592668 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-05-23 21:09:38 EDT --- I made a full review. The package is in good shape. I checked the plugin and it works fine. It doesn't seem to be in the correct ladspa categorization. It should probably go to pitch shifters or something, but this is not a blocker and can be fixed if there is a user request. It also built fine in koji rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2204555 But I have concerns about the licensing and the patents. - rpmlint complains about some spelling errors ladspa-autotalent-plugins.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) plugin -> plug in, plug-in, plugging ladspa-autotalent-plugins.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugin -> plug in, plug-in, plugging ladspa-autotalent-plugins.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US chiptune -> chip tune, chip-tune, chipmunk ladspa-autotalent-plugins.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US formants -> formats, form ants, form-ants which, I believe, can be ignored. * The guidelines say: 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 (from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines) I think the inclusion of an external license file is not what we want. Thanks for contacting upstream about this issue. Let's hope he will add a license notice in his tarball. I am also concerned about the license of the .pdf file you are bundling. Sometimes the documentation comes with a different license than the software' and sometimes the documentation is not free. Did you ask about the license of the .pdf file? The biggest question is the nature and the dates of the patents that are mentioned in mayer_fft.c. They don't give us a patent number, I don't know how we can check it. Any ideas? (If the patent is still effective, then the package is rpmfusion material.) -- 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