https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817193 --- Comment #12 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hi, Review: [+] OK [-] NA [?] Issue [+] Package meets naming and packaging guidelines [+] Spec file matches base package name. [+] Spec has consistant macro usage. [+] Meets Packaging Guidelines. [+] License [+] License field in spec matches [ankur@ankur libccd-1.3]$ !find find . -name "*" -exec licensecheck '{}' \; | sed '/UNKNOWN/ d' ./src/testsuites/cu/cu.c: LGPL (v3 or later) ./src/testsuites/cu/cu.h: LGPL (v3 or later) ./src/testsuites/cu/check-regressions: LGPL (v3 or later) ./src/testsuites/cu/cu.c: LGPL (v3 or later) ./src/testsuites/cu/cu.h: LGPL (v3 or later) ./BSD-LICENSE: BSD (3 clause) ./ccd.pc.in: *No copyright* GENERATED FILE As you see, some of the tests are under the LGPL license. The License should be LGPLv3 and BSD? [+] License file included in package [+] Spec in American English [+] Spec is legible. [+] Sources match upstream md5sum: [ankur@ankur SPECS]$ review-md5check.sh libccd.spec Getting http://libccd.danfis.cz/files/libccd-1.3.tar.gz to /tmp/review/libccd-1.3.tar.gz % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed 100 127k 0 127k 0 0 16072 0 --:--:-- 0:00:08 --:--:-- 69374 2c4fcb78174ebf9441a1706961a669cd /tmp/review/libccd-1.3.tar.gz 2c4fcb78174ebf9441a1706961a669cd /home/ankur/rpmbuild/SOURCES/libccd-1.3.tar.gz removed `/tmp/review/libccd-1.3.tar.gz' removed directory: `/tmp/review' [ankur@ankur SPECS]$ [+] BuildRequires correct [+] Spec handles locales/find_lang [+] Package is code or permissible content. [+] Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. [+] Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. [+] Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun [+] .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig [+] .so files in -devel subpackage. [+] -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [+] Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. [+] Package has no duplicate files in %files. [+] Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. [+] Package owns all the directories it creates. [+] No rpmlint output. [ankur@ankur SRPMS]$ rpmlint ./libccd-1.3-3.fc17.src.rpm ../SPECS/libccd.spec /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [ [+] final provides and requires are sane: == libccd-1.3-3.fc19.src.rpm == Provides: Requires: cmake python valgrind == libccd-1.3-3.fc19.x86_64.rpm == Provides: libccd = 1.3-3.fc19 libccd(x86-64) = 1.3-3.fc19 libccd.so.1()(64bit) Requires: /sbin/ldconfig /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) == libccd-debuginfo-1.3-3.fc19.x86_64.rpm == Provides: libccd-debuginfo = 1.3-3.fc19 libccd-debuginfo(x86-64) = 1.3-3.fc19 Requires: == libccd-devel-1.3-3.fc19.x86_64.rpm == Provides: libccd-devel = 1.3-3.fc19 libccd-devel(x86-64) = 1.3-3.fc19 pkgconfig(ccd) = 1.3 Requires: /usr/bin/pkg-config libccd(x86-64) = 1.3-3.fc19 libccd.so.1()(64bit) [ankur@ankur result]$ SHOULD Items: [+] Should build in mock. [-] Should build on all supported archs [-] Should function as described. [+] Should have sane scriptlets. [+] Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. [+] Should have dist tag [+] Should package latest version Issues: 1. Please check the license Everything else looks okay. Almost ready for approval too! Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur -- 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