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=670127 --- Comment #15 from Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-03-28 22:04:15 EDT --- So, looking at the updated version (review appears to have stalled)?: - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines - OK - Spec file matches base package name. - OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. - OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. - OK - License - *** The license is declared as GPLv3, and that's what's included in the tarball. However, the only source file with a license is LGPLv2+. - License field in spec matches - OK (matches COPYING) - License file included in package - OK - Spec in American English - OK - Spec is legible - OK. - Sources match upstream md5sum: 284162a6a1a6b7762a89b021833a12835a334e535061626269096fb8a96c7e78 /home/notting/prog/rpm/source/the-board-0.1.2.tar.bz2 OK - Package needs ExcludeArch - N/A - BuildRequires correct - OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang - OK - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. - N/A - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. - OK - Package is code or permissible content. - OK - Doc subpackage needed/used. - N/A - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. - OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun - OK - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig - N/A - .so files in -devel subpackage. - OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - OK - .la files are removed. - OK - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file - OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. - OK (tested x86_64) - 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 - No rpmlint output: the-board.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary the-board the-board-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation the-board-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tb-js-unit the-board-nautilus.x86_64: W: no-documentation These are all upstream issues, so OK. - final provides and requires are sane - OK SHOULD Items: - Should build in mock. - OK (tested x86_64) - Should function as described. - OK - Should have sane scriptlets. - OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. - OK - Should have dist tag - OK - Should package latest version - OK So, the only issue I can see is the license mismatch. Probably just requires a clarification from upstream that GPLv3 is their intent? -- 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