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=772406 --- Comment #9 from Thomas Spura <tomspur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2012-03-31 16:16:27 EDT --- - name ok - License ok - $ rpmlint /home/tom/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/cpulimit-1.1-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm /home/tom/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/cpulimit-debuginfo-1.1-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm /home/tom/rpmbuild/SRPMS/cpulimit-1.1-1.fc16.src.rpm cpulimit.x86_64: W: no-documentation cpulimit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cpulimit 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Ignorable - macros everywhere - no libs - no *.la - URL ok (there is another one in the headers, but that is offline) NEEDSWORK: - group: Text? I think "Development/Tools" would fit better. - There is no %doc, so you don't need to write %doc here. - Could you please query upstream to include a COPYING license text? - look throught patches: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=174425&atid=869186 -> maybe use a svn checkout instead http://cpulimit.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/cpulimit/trunk/ http://cpulimit.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/cpulimit/trunk/README?revision=41&view=markup * segfaults fixed and other bugfixes there It looks like there is a 1.2 version available, when you pull from svn (e.g. have a look at fedora-getsvn) (In reply to comment #5) > > [FAIL] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a > > separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > > > > -> add license file in the package > > I could ping upstream to add a license file but i don't think this will be done > soon based on reactions of the upstream to other reports. Is this a blocker? It's a blocker to not query upstream and ask for one ;) Considering the sigsegv patch and nonresponsiveness of upsteam, it would be great, when you could mail him (it seems he doesn't care much about patches/questions submitted on sourceforce) and ask for the LICENSE file/what fixes are really needed/if patches are sane to apply. When upstream is not available anymore, be aware that you should fix all bugs in it, if possible... :( Other than that: - Your spec files look fine. - Your comments in other review requests were fine. --> Ready for sponsorship, when the last pieces are cleared from above :) -- 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