https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156657 --- Comment #4 from Christian Dersch <chrisdersch@xxxxxxxxx> --- Thank you for your fast review Raphael :) (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #3) > [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines. > ++ If the source package does not include the text of the license(s), the > packager should contact upstream and encourage them to correct this mistake. > Please do so. The package contains a copy of the GPLv3+ in LICENXE.txt > [?]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory > names). > ++ This is not fully clear. I don't understand why you use macros sometimes > and sometimes not. See also my initial comments about that. > What does "consistently" mean for you? Just as a warning to keep potential > upwards compatibility if folder standards change or the like. I can change this if neccessary (you mean the sed command i think) > [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. > ++ Consider here that it does not build for F20. ExcludeArch means something like "doesn't build for i686", not the Fedora release. > [?]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file > from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > ++ Please do so. See also doubled Remark above. See above, LICENSE.txt contains the complete GPLv3 > [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). > [?]: Package functions as described. > ++ I dont have INDI stuff locally to test. So I have to trust the maintainer > for functionality or potential users to file bugs in the future. I tested it. > [?]: %check is present and all tests pass. > ++ Maybe call aagcloudwatcher_test in %check? This binary checks if the device is connected properly. Not a check in sense of %check section in spec. Greetings, Christian -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review