https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853252 --- Comment #6 from Patrick Uiterwijk <puiterwijk@xxxxxxxxx> --- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistent macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPLv3+) NOT OK - License field in spec matches See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum. OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. See below - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package obey's FHS standard (except for 2 exceptions) See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version OK - Should not use file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin Issues: 1. The license is only visible because of the LICENSE/gpl-3.0.txt files, no headers are visible in the files indicating their license. 2. I would prefer to call the license file COPYING, as is the standard. I'm not sure about the symlink, it seems very strange to me. 3. This spec is not allowed for el5 as it misses the buildroot and %clean sections. 4. rpmlint has been mentioned before. Could you please comment on or fix issues 1 and 2? -- 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