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: tla - A version control system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=376421 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-11-16 01:08 EST ------- Builds OK (although with a staggering amount of warnings) and rpmlint is clean. The license tag is wrong. The source doesn't include any statement of GPL version, but docs-tla/index.tst says version 2 or later, so you should have License: GPLv2+. I have to say, that's one ugly build process. I note you remove all of the original changelog. It's fine to remove old stuff, but I'd be uneasy about removing all of it. Really, the only blocker I see is that the License: tag needs a '+', so I'll go ahead and approve this and you can fix it when you take over the package. But do think about keeping some of the original changelog entries. * source files match upstream: 40aa82ca9678878ecdcac94d8890a63fe8064141a53d1652409a5c1383fcae06 tla-1.3.5.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently (It's about as clean as you can ask for when the build process is so nasty.) * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. X license field does not match the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: tla = 1.3.5-1.fc9 = /bin/sh diffutils libneon.so.27()(64bit) patch tar * %check is present and all tests pass. (Test output is too long to paste.) * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. APPROVED -- 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