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=472150 --- Comment #72 from Tim Fenn <fenn@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-07-20 03:01:30 EDT --- (In reply to comment #69) > > - = N/A > / = Check > x = Problem > ? = Not evaluated > > === REQUIRED ITEMS === > [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > License type: "Mostly GPLv3, some GLPv2+, some LGPLv3." (from website) is > not quite the same as "GPLv3+ and LGPLv2" (from spec file) I double checked the licenses on all the header/source files, and only the CCP4MG code (in ccp4mg-utils) and the libcoot-surface library (which depends on the libccp4mg library) use LGPLv2+ code. All the other code is GPLv3+ according to the headers and COPYING file. My guess is the website is slightly outdated (I pointed out to upstream the varying licenses in the source, and the code headers and files were updated a few months ago). > [X] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. done. > [X] %check is present and the tests pass I've added a %check, but it fails (there are several errors in the test code). I'll talk with upstream and try to get this fixed for 0.6.2, but let me know if this is a show-stopper and I'll make a patch for the broken tests. Also, you mentioned a failed build on EL5 - do you have the log? Spec URL: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/coot.spec SRPM URL: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/coot-0.6.1-2.20100127svn2740.fc13.src.rpm -- 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