[Bug 251825] Review Request: maniadrive-data - Data files for maniadrive, a 3D stunt driving game

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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-data - Data files for maniadrive, a 3D stunt driving game


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=251825





------- Additional Comments From packages@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  2007-08-28 15:41 EST -------
* rpmlint: Ok

W: maniadrive-data dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/maniadrive/rayphp
../raydium/rayphp
The relative symbolic link points nowhere.

I believe this is OK and points to a file in the main maniadrive package but
will check when I review that also.

* Package named correctly: Yes
* Patches named correctly: Yes
* Spec file named correctly: Yes
* Licence(s) acceptable: Yes
* Licence field matches: No (!!!!) see below
* Licence file installed: Yes and included upstream
* Spec file in American English: Yes
* Source matches upstream: N/A (upstream sources are repackaged by necessity)
* 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 devel/i386)
* 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: No
* 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. The license field says GPLv2+, but I believe it should be GPL+

The README states GPL and the version (as I understand it) stated in COPYING is
not sufficient. Unless the GPL version is specified in the source or
accompanying documentation then it is GPL+, I couldn't find a reference to that
specific version but if there is one, let me know.


2. Not a blocker but I suggest converting README from iso-8859-1 to UTF8.


Otherwise the package seems fine.

-- 
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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]