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=617340 --- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-08-14 14:40:08 EDT --- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. See below - License See below - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: bb8abf5a9a63ed7d80951f056543a88c throttle-1.2.tar.gz bb8abf5a9a63ed7d80951f056543a88c ../rpm/throttle/throttle-1.2.tar.gz OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package obey's FHS standard (except for 2 exceptions) OK - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version OK - Should not use file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin Issues: 1. The license seems to be GPLv2, but throttle.c has: * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License. It looks like they might have meant, 'or any later version' there, or messed up cutting that off. Could you ask upstream to clarify if it's ONLY GPLv2, or if they meant GPLv2+ 2. rpmlint says: 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. So, the only issue here is the clarification of the license. I'll look at some of your other reviews in the mean time. ;) -- 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