https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820115 --- Comment #9 from Ding-Yi Chen <dchen@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #8) > $ rpmlint -v leptonica.spec > leptonica.spec: I: checking-url > http://leptonica.googlecode.com/files/leptonica-1.69.tar.gz (timeout 10 > seconds) > leptonica.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: > http://leptonica.googlecode.com/files/leptonica-1.69.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: > Not Found > 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. > > It seems like the actual package URL is a .tar.bz2. I made that > substitution to perform the rest of the review and testing. It has a .tar.gz download. See http://code.google.com/p/leptonica/downloads/list You can even use spectool -g leptonica.spec > >>> MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. > >>> MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. > > The package is listed as using the ASL 2.0 license but the file > leptonica-license.txt does not seem to be the same as the ASL. It seems > similar but differs specifically in that clause 4.2 of the ASL 2.0 license > ("you must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that > You changed the files") does not seem to be present in the Leptonica > license. I can't seem to discern based on Wiki resources whether or not > calling it ASL 2.0 is okay; after all, the two do seem fairly similar. Mmm, I have read http://www.leptonica.com/about-the-license.html again and it seems that it has its own license. Will contacts legal-list and see what they said. > > rm -f %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/liblept.la > > Since you've already defined %{libname} as liblept, couldn't you use > %{libname}.la? Will do. > >>> SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. > > I think a patch should be used instead of the sed substitution; if the sed > lines no longer become necessary (or perhaps even become harmful after > upstream updates), sed will not fail. Patches, on the other hand, will > throw errors and the problem is clear at buildtime and does not manifest as > a bizarre runtime bug. I have seen some other reviews where people have > suggested this (prefer patches to sed) but I can't find a particular > guideline indicating it. So I guess this is just my opinion. :) This is actually the "offical" way to remove rpath. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Removing_Rpath > I also think there may be a typo in the description: > > > * Pixel<-wise masking, blending, enhancement, arithmetic ops, > > Should that be 'pixel-wise'? Thanks, I'll fix the address issues and contact the legal-list about the license. -- 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