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=537325 Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #15 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-07-15 16:50:46 EDT --- Fedora Review lv2-fil-plugins 2010-07-15 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint lv2-fil-plugins-2.0-2.fc12.src.rpm lv2-fil-plugins-2.0-2.fc12.x86_64.rpm lv2-fil-plugins-debuginfo-2.0-2.fc12.x86_64.rpm lv2-fil-plugins.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US whithout -> without, whiteout, whither lv2-fil-plugins.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugin -> plug in, plug-in, plugging lv2-fil-plugins.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US coloured -> Coloured, colored, co loured lv2-fil-plugins.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US whithout -> without, whiteout, whither lv2-fil-plugins.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugin -> plug in, plug-in, plugging lv2-fil-plugins.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US coloured -> Coloured, colored, co loured 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Fix spelling error: whithout → without Fix BE vs. AE: coloured → colored The warning about "plugin" can be ignored + Package is named according to guidelines (and fits well with existing lv2-*-plugins packages) + Specfile is named after the package + Package license tag (LGPLv2+ and GPLv2 and GPLv2+) is Fedora approved Licenses of installed components: * filter.so: filter.[ch] → GPLv2+ lv2filter.[ch] → GPLv2 lv2plugin.c → GPLv2 log.[ch] → GPLv2 lv2_ui.c → GPLv2+ lv2_ui.h → LGPLv2+ lv2_external_ui.h → Public domain License for aggregate: GPLv2 * ui → license statement in file: GPLv2 * filter.ttl, lv2logo.png, manifest.ttl → no license statement in the files → assume GPLv2 since this is what upstream claims is the default for the project http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License:_field says: "The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the binary rpm." - So as far as I read the guidelines a license tag of "GPLv2" is enough + The license file (COPYING) is included as %doc + Specfile is written in legible English + Source matches upstream: $ md5sum srpm/lv2fil-2.0.tar.bz2 lv2fil-2.0.tar.bz2 dc1a54c3a35b3639755b985cdcd281b6 srpm/lv2fil-2.0.tar.bz2 dc1a54c3a35b3639755b985cdcd281b6 lv2fil-2.0.tar.bz2 + Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2322943 ? BuildRequires are sane, but build used bundles waf instead of system's, intentional? + No locales + No shared libraries in the default library search path + No bundled libraries + Package owns directories it creates + No duplicate files + Permissions are sane and %files has %defattr + Specfile uses macros consistently + Contains code + %doc is not runtime essential + No headers + No static libraries + No libtool archives + Package does not own other's directories + Installed files have valid UTF8 filenames -- 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