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=650643 --- Comment #12 from Dan HorÃk <dan@xxxxxxxx> 2010-11-22 10:34:43 EST --- formal review is here, see the notes explaining OK* and BAD statuses below: OK source files match the one got by cleaning upstream one OK* package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. BAD license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64). OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. OK shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK correct scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is in -docs subpackage OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK headers in -devel OK pkgconfig files in -devel. OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. - no diff between the included source archive and the one reproduced with the steps written in spec file - I think the version should be 0.6.2b instead of 0.6.2 - there are 3 files in the src/elements directory that are LGPLv2+ licensed, looks like as an omission, the copyright holder is the same as in the MIT licensed files, also it's fixed in 0.7.5, I am not sure what will be the best solution here ... -- 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