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=725200 Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #14 from Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-07-25 23:48:31 EDT --- Here is the review. There are a few blockers though: * Fails to build on rawhide. I didn't look at it in detail yet. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3229864 * The main package does not have a group tag. It's interesting to see that rpmlint didn't complain. * rpmlint: raptor2.x86_64: W: no-documentation There is a bunch of doc files (README, ChangeLog, etc) on the root of the source tree that we should probably package. Especially the licensing stuff. Also examples/ directory could be packaged in devel subpackage. * The LICENSE.txt says this is GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+ or ASL 2.0. However these files in src/ are GPLv3+: parsedate.c, turtle_parter.{c,h} and this makes me confused. * rpmlint says raptor2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers -> parser, parses, parers raptor2.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog -1 ['2.0.3-1.fc15', '2.0.3-1'] raptor2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers -> parser, parses, parers These can be ignored, except maybe you want to fix the changelog complaint. ? Shouldn't we package /usr/bin/rapper here instead of raptor(1). This is the one that is being maintained. -- 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