https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218310 Kalev Lember <kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Kalev Lember <kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx> --- Fedora review fedora-user-agent-chrome-0.0.0.1-1.fc21.src.rpm 2015-05-04 $ rpmlint fedora-user-agent-chrome-0.0.0.1-1.fc22.src.rpm \ fedora-user-agent-chrome-0.0.0.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm fedora-user-agent-chrome.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. + OK ! needs attention + rpmlint warnings are harmless and can be ignored + The package is named according to Fedora packaging guidelines + The spec file name matches the base package name. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. ! The license field in the spec file matches the actual license background.js says "or any later version", but the spec file license tag says GPLv2 -- should it be GPLv2+ instead? + The license text (LICENSE) is included in %license + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible + Upstream sources match the sources in the srpm 8989c2feff36a77fae131c7986bb22cd fedora-user-agent-chrome-0.0.0.1.tar.gz 8989c2feff36a77fae131c7986bb22cd Download/fedora-user-agent-chrome-0.0.0.1.tar.gz + The package builds in koji n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires look sane n/a locale handling n/a ldconfig in %post and %postun + Package does not bundle copies of system libraries n/a Package isn't relocatable + Package owns all the directories it creates + No duplicate files in %files + Permissions are properly set + Consistent use of macros + The package must contain code or permissible content n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + Files marked %doc should not affect the runtime of application n/a Static libraries should be in -static n/a Development files should be in -devel n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base + Packages should not contain libtool .la files n/a Proper .desktop file handling + Doesn't own files or directories already owned by other packages + Filenames are valid UTF-8 Just the question about GPLv2 vs GPLv2+ above, otherwise looks good to me. -- 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