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: maniadrive-music - Replacement soundtrack for the non free ManiaDrive soundtrack https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=251826 ------- Additional Comments From packages@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-08-27 16:48 EST ------- * rpmlint: No Problems * Package named correctly: Yes * Patches named correctly: N/A * Spec file named correctly: Yes * Licence(s) acceptable: Yes * Licence field matches: No (!!! - See below) * Licence file installed: Yes (!!! - See below) * Spec file in American English: Yes * Source matches upstream: N/A * Locales use %find_lang: N/A * Contains %clean: Yes * %install contain rm -rf %{buildroot} or similar: Yes * Specfile legible: Yes * Compiles and builds ok: Yes (mock/i386 devel) * Calls ldconfig in %post/%postun for shlibs: N/A * Owns directories it creates: Yes * Duplicate files: No * Permissions set correctly: Yes * Consistent macro use: Yes * Separate -doc needed (for large docs): N/A * %doc affects runtime: N/A * Headers and static libs in -devel: N/A * .pc files in -devel: N/A * .so in -devel: N/A * -devel requires base: N/A * Contains .la files: N/A * Owns files it didn't create: No * .desktop files included and installed correctly: N/A * Filenames valid UTF8: Yes 1. I think the license field should be: CC-BY and Free Art and GPL+ I couldn't find anything that refers to a specific GPL version and according to the licensing page, GPL is not a valid short form. 2. According to the guidelines: "MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc." So I have doubts that the text of the licenses should be included in the README. Apart from that I see no problems. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review