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=617764 --- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-07-24 03:46:19 EDT --- Thank you for initial comments. (In reply to comment #2) > [XX] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in > the review. > > I'm guessing that the dangerous-commands are fine since they're macros and > presumably fine. Perms are my thing. Seems to be an rpath sneaking around in > gpf-ss. spectool -g gets the tarball, so that's fine as well. > > So, just that rpath issue. - Well, what do you mean "rpath" here? This is noarch and rpath should not be related. > [OK] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the > format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. > [XX] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual > license. > > Looking at COPYING, it seems there is GPLv2+, MIT, and BSD code included as > well. Nothing bad, just might need to be listed. - Will change the license tag to "GPLv3+ and GPLv2+" (and adding some comments that some png files are under GPLv2+. I usually don't explicit write about MIT or BSD or so if GPL codes are also included). > Other: > > - For the EPEL stuff at the top, the sitearch macro can be removed since this > is noarch. - Will remove %python_sitearch > - How is python3 parallel install? - I guess the upstream will say something when python3 is supported. And I have not tried python3... so for now I want to make this package just support python2. -- 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