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: perl-Tk-FileDialog - File dialog for Perl Tk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431217 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-02-01 13:39 EST ------- This one builds. rpmlint says: perl-Tk-FileDialog.noarch: W: invalid-license Artistic perl-Tk-FileDialog.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL Please use the license tag "GPL+ or Artistic" for Perl modules distributed "under the same terms as Perl itself". http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing Wow, the upstream source hasn't been updated in twelve years. Are you sure this is a good idea? You might consider removing that comment after the BuildArch: line; comments from the templates aren't generally useful in the actual packages. Really, the only blocker I see is the License: tag, which you can fix up when you check in. * source files match upstream: 58061c10c605ba951ed1215e86e7fc69f08e6bf2222295963729ccc2bb84e1e4 Tk-FileDialog-1.3.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. X license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly X rpmlint has a valid complaint. * final provides and requires are sane: perl(Tk::FileDialog) = 1.3 perl-Tk-FileDialog = 1.3-1.fc9 = perl >= 0:5.002 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Carp) perl(Tk) perl(Tk::Dialog) perl(strict) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * 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 -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. APPROVED, just fix up the License: tag to "GPL+ or Artistic". -- 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