Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: gnome-web-photo: HTML pages thumbnailer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=233070 ------- Additional Comments From bnocera@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-09-06 10:12 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > formal review: <snip> > gnome-web-photo.i386: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.3.2 0.3-2.fc8 > > should be fixed Typo, fixed. > gnome-web-photo.i386: W: invalid-license GPL > > must be fixed (see below) LGPLv2.1+ as per COPYING.README. I believe GPL refers to some of the build tools/scripts. > gnome-web-photo.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 38, tab: line 38) > > unimportant Fixed anyway. > package name: ok > spec file name: ok > packaging guidelines: > - I don't think there is any reason to use %{__rm} Fixed. > - You need a %postun for gconf schemas, I believe The schemas is removed in %preun, nothing to do in %postun, as the schemas's already gone. > - The preferred form of the requires is perl(XML::Parser) > license: unclear, COPYING is GPLv2, but the sources all say LGPLv2+, > should be clarified upstream See above. > license field: should be updated to match the result of aforementioned > clarification Done. > license file: ok I put just the COPYING.README, should I also package the COPYING.LGPL? > build reqs: misses libjpeg-devel Fixed. http://www.gnome.org/~hadess/gnome-web-photo/gnome-web-photo-0.3-3.src.rpm http://www.gnome.org/~hadess/gnome-web-photo/gnome-web-photo.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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