https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861922 --- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Hi Ankur, thanks for reviewing the package. (In reply to comment #3) > [?] License field in spec matches > ^^ > The copying file is GPLv2, and I see no mention of the GPL+ license anywhere > in the source. Right, the problem is the source files do not state explicitly that they are GPLv2+ (they just say "GPL"), so I defaulted to GPL+. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ#How_do_I_figure_out_what_version_of_the_GPL.2FLGPL_my_package_is_under.3F I guess I should ask the upstream maintainer to clarify the GPL version anyway. However grepping more carefully now I see there is a manpage src file in docbook (.dbk) which states the manpage is GPLv2+. I am not sure if that is sufficient to make the whole package GPLv2+, perhaps? > [+] -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} > ^^ > An arch specific provides using the %{?_isa} would be better? Good point - fixing > bibutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US interconverts -> inter > converts, inter-converts, interconnects changing this to "converts" > bibutils.src:42: W: configure-without-libdir-spec > > -> Not a standard configure file. Looks okay. Yeah, for better or worse it is a tcsh script! > bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wordbib2xml > bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary modsclean > bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary biblatex2xml > bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2end > bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2ads > bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ris2xml > bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2isi > bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary endx2xml > bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bib2xml > bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary med2xml > bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2ris > bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary end2xml > bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2wordbib > bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary copac2xml > bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isi2xml > bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ebi2xml > bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2bib > > -> Some man pages would be nice, if upstream can provide them Ok let me build the manpage included in the src. > bibutils-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libbibutils.so.4.15 > exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 > > -> Upstream issue. Please notify upstream Ok will ask upstream about this too. > 1. Licence clarification > 2. Cosmetic changes (rpmlint and _isa macro usage) > > Everything else looks good. Almost good to go. Thanks. Updated package should hopefully fix the remaining issues: Spec: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/bibutils/bibutils.spec SRPM: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/bibutils/bibutils-4.15-2.fc17.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4550007 -- 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