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=706565 --- Comment #9 from David Nalley <david@xxxxxxx> 2011-05-22 13:46:14 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) Inline reply: > Summary of issues needing correction in MUST requirements of package review: > > not sure if this is a significant issue or not - I don't understand why rpmlint > is complaining. > > MUST (1 warning): rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the > build produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1] > > [sdake@beast Downloads]$ rpmlint -v sheepdog-0.2.3-1.fc14.src.rpm > sheepdog.src: I: checking > sheepdog.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Sheepdog > sheepdog.src: I: checking-url http://www.osrg.net/sheepdog (timeout 10 seconds) > sheepdog.src: I: checking-url > http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/sheepdog/sheepdog/0.2.3/sheepdog-0.2.3.tar.gz > (timeout 10 seconds) > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. I personally tend to ignore this particular warning, but I am happy to change it if you so desire, or if you just want rpmlint to be silent. > > MUST(FAIL): The License field in the package spec file must match the actual > license. [3] > > The package license is GPLv2, not GPLv2+. Looking through the source files, I > don't see any references to GPLv3 - if you can point me at them, I'll make sure > they get fixed upstream. So while the vast majority of the source files are indeed GPLv2, depcomps and missing have the 'or (at your option) any later version.' in their license text, which means GPLv2+ hence both GPLv2 and GPLv2+ > > > MUST (NEEDHELP): If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on > an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in > ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in > bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on > that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the > corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8] > > I am not sure how to verify this. Last I recall, we turned off builds of > dependent packages (corosync) on some architectures in Fedora, which would make > building this difficult on these arches :). I will get back to you on this > point Monday. Yeah, I didn't even think about looking at the ExcludeArches on corosync. -- 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