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=513320 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #21 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-12-14 14:47:48 EST --- Hate to do this, but now that I look at the license stuff I'm having trouble figuring out what's what. The COPYING.txt file indicates that a bunch of stuff is under their specific "GPLv2+ with exceptions" license, and that some of the code is dual licensed "GPL (v something) or BSD", and of course it says "unless stated otherwise in the file" so you have to check all of the files. So it looks to me to be a bit more complicated than just "BSD or GPLv2+ with exceptions". You will need to figure out which parts of the final packages are under which license(s) and indicate that, generally with a comment in the spec near the License: tag but if it gets overly complex you can move it off to a file included as documentation. I'm guessing since spot already signed off on these that there's no problem with compatibility between the different license stuff, since you can always use the dual-licensed stuff under the BSD license in order to link it with the GPLv2+ with exceptions stuff. It seems that nothing owns /etc/boxbackup. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 7bd734b5ab37f67aa88029635306e586b9e33bffe4ded5760f9d299b2b03e01b boxbackup-0.11rc8.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. ? license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: boxbackup-0.11-0.3.rc8.fc15.x86_64.rpm config(boxbackup) = 0.11-0.3.rc8.fc15 boxbackup = 0.11-0.3.rc8.fc15 boxbackup(x86-64) = 0.11-0.3.rc8.fc15 = /bin/bash /bin/sh /usr/bin/perl chkconfig config(boxbackup) = 0.11-0.3.rc8.fc15 initscripts libcrypto.so.10()(64bit) libdb-4.8.so()(64bit) libedit.so.0()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libssl.so.10()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.14)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) openssl >= 0.9.7a perl(strict) shadow-utils boxbackup-server-0.11-0.3.rc8.fc15.x86_64.rpm config(boxbackup-server) = 0.11-0.3.rc8.fc15 boxbackup-server = 0.11-0.3.rc8.fc15 boxbackup-server(x86-64) = 0.11-0.3.rc8.fc15 = /bin/bash /bin/sh /usr/bin/perl config(boxbackup-server) = 0.11-0.3.rc8.fc15 libcrypto.so.10()(64bit) libdb-4.8.so()(64bit) libedit.so.0()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libssl.so.10()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.14)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) perl(strict) * no bundled libraries. X fails to own /etc/boxbackup. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * scriptlets are OK (service management, user creation). * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. -- 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