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=592772 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #10 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-12-14 10:26:22 EST --- Actually if you use the latest rpmlint you get no complaints from the srpm and just these from the built rpm: drobo-utils-gui.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/security/console.apps/droboview-root drobo-utils-gui.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/pam.d/droboview-root drobo-utils-gui.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary droboview-root which are all OK. I'm having trouble figuring out the license. The code itself doesn't have the proper license blocks and just refers to the COPYING file. The COPYING file just has the generic GPLv3 text, which says (see section 14) that unless the code specifically indicates a version, you can use any version. The README files and upstream web site just say "GPL". The About dialog for the GUI says: license: General Public License (GPL) v3 and you have "GPLv3+" in the spec. At this point I'd go with the About dialog and use "GPLv3", but you should ask upstream to clarify and if possible put proper GPL license blocks in their code. The COPYING file itself indicates how to do this, down at the bottom under "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs". Other than the license issue I think this is fine. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 00f2bc162c0050da9630d3134ef4317c042fec22c558f2933c7f936bfea4ebf6 drobo-utils-0.6.2.2.tgz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summaries are OK. * descriptions are OK. * dist tag is present. X license field does not match the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: drobo-utils-0.6.2.2-8.fc15.noarch.rpm drobo-utils = 0.6.2.2-8.fc15 = /usr/bin/python parted python(abi) = 2.7 python-ctypes drobo-utils-gui-0.6.2.2-8.fc15.noarch.rpm config(drobo-utils-gui) = 0.6.2.2-8.fc15 drobo-utils-gui = 0.6.2.2-8.fc15 = /bin/sh PyQt4 config(drobo-utils-gui) = 0.6.2.2-8.fc15 drobo-utils usermode * no bundled libraries. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * desktop files valid and installed properly. -- 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