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=812132 David Cantrell <dcantrell@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(agrover@xxxxxxxxx | |m) --- Comment #7 from David Cantrell <dcantrell@xxxxxxxxxx> 2012-05-04 14:09:24 EDT --- The package looks pretty clean, but I have some questions/concerns: 1) Is the github repo the upstream? 2) Having the source archive be a gzipped tar file but named "v1.1" is bad form. Please correct this. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL for more information on options here. github presents a challenge because there is not a good way for us to reference tar.gz downloads and it is up to the maintainer to create those, though if you are also upstream I would recommend creating those. 3) The license in the spec file is correctly noted as LGPLv2+, but the source archive contains both a copy of the GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+. Reading the code, I see no mention of GPL-only licensed code. It's all LGPL. I would recommend removing the GPLv2+ COPYING file and just keeping the LGPLv2+ file. In fact, the FSF distributes that file as COPYING.LIB (see ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/Licenses/), which is the name I recommend you use rather than COPYING.LESSER 4) The source archive unpacks to agrover-python-lvm-3363431, which is a little confusing. If you are generating this archive, please make it %{name}-%{version}. -- 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