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=517462 Ruediger Landmann <r.landmann@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |r.landmann@xxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |r.landmann@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Ruediger Landmann <r.landmann@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-01-21 01:43:16 EST --- Looks pretty good apart from two issues noted below: Version of SRPM reviewed: http://dchen.fedorapeople.org/files/rpms/voicedata-zh_TW-gcin-EdwardLiu-20090221-3.fc11.src.rpm - = N/A / = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [/] Rpmlint output is clean: $ rpmlint SPECS/voicedata-zh_TW-gcin-EdwardLiu.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint SRPMS/voicedata-zh_TW-gcin-EdwardLiu-20090221-3.fc14.src.rpm voicedata-zh_TW-gcin-EdwardLiu.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found zh_TW 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint /home/rlandmann/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/voicedata-zh_TW-gcin-EdwardLiu-20090221-3.fc14.noarch.rpm voicedata-zh_TW-gcin-EdwardLiu.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found zh_TW 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [/] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Comment: name is unconventional, but appears to meet the general guidelines and the proposed guideline for CommonVoiceData. The name of the upstream tarball isn't useful in this case. [/] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [/] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Language specific items [/] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. =============================== [!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. The upstream project page simply says "GNU GPL3" The creator of the data, eliu, agrees to release the data under GPL3 http://hyperrate.com/thread.php?tid=12976 The license field in the spec file correctly states "GPLv3" But the %description field contradicts this: "The voice data is now released under GPLv3+." Since we don't need to have that in the %description at all, please just delete that line from the %description. =============================== [/] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [/] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [/] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. $ md5sum SOURCES/ogg-gpl3-20090221.tar.gz d9b7089365114bb369a64673f0320071 SOURCES/ogg-gpl3-20090221.tar.gz $ md5sum ~/Download/ogg-gpl3-20090221.tar.gz d9b7089365114bb369a64673f0320071 /home/rlandmann/Download/ogg-gpl3-20090221.tar.gz [/] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2734359 [/] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [/] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly (with the %find_lang macro) [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [-] Package does not bundle copies of system libraries [-] Package is not relocatable. =============================== [!] Package must own all directories that it creates. What owns /usr/share/voicedata/ ? =============================== [/] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [/] Permissions on files are set properly [/] %files section includes a %defattr(...) line [/] Package consistently uses macros. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [/] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] -devel packages require base package with full versioning. [/] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [/] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [/] Filenames are valid UTF-8 -- 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