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=755498 Volker Fröhlich <volker27@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |volker27@xxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Volker Fröhlich <volker27@xxxxxx> 2011-12-09 13:39:15 EST --- According to the files, the license is GPLv2+, not MIT. The FSF address is wrong. Feel free to correct it or not, but inform upstream. Inform upstream, they're shipping a wrong license file and therefore don't include it or replace it with the proper one for Fedora. Even other files state LGPL. I'm not really sure, whether you're packaging a real release or a snapshot. If it is a snapshot, you must change release and give guidelines how to build the tarball you're using. If it is not a snapshot, use a URL for Source0. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines The build does not respect Fedora's optflags. You can drop defattr. CREDITS is not UTF8. Buildroot, clean section and the rm in the install section are only useful for EPEL 5 or older. If you're not going for these, remove them. Don't exceed 80 characters per line with your description. Please align the entries for Source0 and Group with the rest (mixed use of tabs and spaces) Ask upstream to release tarball names and directories that don't contain a Git hash, but name-version or something different that makes sense: http://ftp.sunet.se/pub/Linux/kernel.org/software/scm/git/docs/git-archive.html -- 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