Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ocaml-calendar - Objective CAML library for managing dates and times https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240571 lxtnow@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |lxtnow@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow@xxxxxxxxx 2007-08-06 17:09 EST ------- === REQUIRED ITEMS === [ OK ] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ OK ] Spec file name must match the base package. [ OK ] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [ OK ] Package successfully to build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [ CHECK ] Tested on: Mock i3864 [F-devel] [ OK ] Package is not relocatable. [ OK ] Buildroot is correct [ OK ] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license. [ FAILED ] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [ OK ] License type: LGPLv2 [ FAILED ] The source package includes the text of the license(s). [ OK ] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ SKIP ] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [ OK ] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. [ OK ] The spec file handles locales properly. [ SKIP ] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [ Ok ] Package must own all directories that it creates. [ OK ] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [ OK ] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [ OK ] Permissions on files are set properly. [ OK ] Package has a %clean section. [ OK ] Package consistently uses macros. [ OK ] Package contains code, or permissable content. [ SKIP ] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [ CHECK ] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ SKIP] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [ SKIP ] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [ SKIP ] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [ SKIP ] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [ CHECK ] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [ OK ] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [ SKIP ] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file. [ OK ] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. According to OCaml Packaging Guideline: [ OK ] OCaml modules / libs should be named ocaml-foo. [ OK ] The spec file should still build bytecode libraries and binaries. [ OK ] Should Test if the native compiler is present. [ OK ] main package should contain files matching all files which're mentioned in OCaml guideline if present. [ OK ] -devel sub-package Should contains all files which're mentioned in OCaml guidelines if present. [ CHECK ] rpmlint output: * On -devel & srpm packages: silent. * On main package: W: ocaml-calendar devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/ocaml/calendar/date.cmi W: ocaml-calendar devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/ocaml/calendar/printer.cmi W: ocaml-calendar devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/ocaml/calendar/calendar.cmi W: ocaml-calendar devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/ocaml/calendar/time_Zone.cmi W: ocaml-calendar devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/ocaml/calendar/period.cmi W: ocaml-calendar devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/ocaml/calendar/time.cmi E: ocaml-calendar no-binary E: ocaml-calendar only-non-binary-in-usr-lib === ISSUES === # License - Well, as we know that the license policy has been changed since few days see -devel list. https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-August/msg00108.html And your package is LGPLv2 licensed, You have to use "LGPLv2" in license field instead. # rpmlint output on main package: - According to the OCaml pacjaging guidelines, those error/warning can be ignored. # Documents: - Please add the following: LGPL COPYING calendarFAQ-2.6.txt Also doc directory -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review