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=755069 Hedayat Vatankhah <hedayatv@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Hedayat Vatankhah <hedayatv@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-11-21 11:39:18 EST --- My Review: MUST Items: =================== rpmlint output: splix.src: W: invalid-url Source0: splix-2.0.1.20111121svn.tar.gz splix.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/splix-2.0.1/COPYING splix.src: W: non-coherent-filename splix-2.0.1-0.2.20111121svn.src.rpm splix-2.0.1-0.2.20111121svn.fc16.src.rpm splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/ppdfile.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/algo0x0d.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/compress.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/include/rendering.h splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/printer.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/bandplane.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/page.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/include/colors.h splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/algo0x0e.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/document.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/colors.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/semaphore.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/cache.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/include/request.h splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/request.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/include/algorithm.h splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/include/band.h splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/include/compress.h splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/pstoqpdl.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/include/printer.h splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/include/algo0x11.h splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/algorithm.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/include/document.h splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/algo0x11.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/include/qpdl.h splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/qpdl.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/include/ppdfile.h splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/band.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/include/semaphore.h splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/include/bandplane.h splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/include/algo0x0d.h splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/include/cache.h splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/include/algo0x0e.h splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/rendering.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/rastertoqpdl.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/include/options.h splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/include/page.h splix.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: splix-2.0.1.20111121svn.tar.gz 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 38 errors, 4 warnings. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Remarks: - invalid url errors are fine since it is a pre-release package - src.rpm file name doesn't match the release tag inside the package. IMO, since new src.rpms will be generated after importing the package, it should be fine. - COPYING file is a bit out-dated. It would be preferred if upstream is notified about this and update it. But doesn't look like to block the review. Naming: OK (pre-release snapshot) Spec file naming: OK Maybe including ChangeLog,TODO and Thanks files as doc is appropriate (specially Thanks file) Licensing: OK (GPLv2, spec matches) include license file as %doc: OK SPEC in American English: OK SPEC legibility: OK Builds fine: Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3529728 OK Locale handling: it is not handled conventionally and is included in ppd files. No dynamic libraries OK No external libs included OK Directory ownership: OK No duplicate file listing: OK Proper permissions for files: OK Consistency use macros: OK Permissable code or content: OK No large docs: OK Doc files not required for running: OK No header files in non-devel package: OK No static libraries: OK No .so files: OK No -devel packages needed. OK No .la files: OK Not a GUI application, so no .desktop file. OK No duplicate file ownership OK Valid UTF-8 file names OK Should Items ============= Package includes license text Package built in Koji Cannot test if package functions properly No scriptlets No subpackages No -devel subpackage No file based dependency No binaries which would need man pages Result ======== The package looks fine and can be accepted. Only a few notes/questions: 1. Can you ask upstream to update its COPYING file and also FSF address in copyright header in .h and .cpp files? But as far as I can see, it is not required to be done before acceptance. 2. Maybe adding these files as %doc makes sense: ChangeLog, TODO and Thanks ?! Specially the last one. -- 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