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=813542 --- Comment #6 from Kalev Lember <kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-04-18 11:52:11 EDT --- Fedora review python-pivy-0.5.0-2.hg609.fc16.src.rpm 2012-04-18 + OK ! needs attention rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-pivy \ python-pivy-debuginfo \ python-pivy-0.5.0-2.hg609.fc16.src.rpm python-pivy.src:52: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib python-pivy.src: W: invalid-url Source0: Pivy-0.5.0-hg609.tar.gz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. + Rpmlint warnings/errors are harmless and can be ignored + The package is named according to Fedora packaging guidelines + The spec file name matches the base package name. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. ! The license field in the spec file doesn't match the actual license The spec file currently states that it's BSD licensed. However, the license headers in the source code and the LICENSE file appear to specify the ISC license, which, according to the list of allowed licenses [1], should use "License: ISC" tag in the spec file. + The package contains the license file (LICENSE) + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible + Upstream hg checkout sources match sources in the srpm. + The package builds in koji n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires look sane n/a The spec file handles locales properly n/a ldconfig in %post and %postun + Package does not bundle copies of system libraries n/a Package isn't relocatable + Package owns all the directories it creates + No duplicate files in %files + Permissions are properly set + Consistent use of macros + The package must contain code or permissible content n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + Files marked %doc should not affect package n/a Header files should be in -devel n/a Static libraries should be in -static n/a Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base + Packages should not contain libtool .la files n/a Proper .desktop file handling + Doesn't own files or directories already owned by other packages + Filenames are valid UTF-8 Issues ------ 1) The spec 'BSD' vs 'ISC' licensing issue outlined above 2) Maybe it'd be better to use pre-release version numbering [2], in case upstream decides to release 0.5.0 final some day? 0.5.0-0.2.hg609 instead of 0.5.0-2.hg609 [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses [2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages -- 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