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: xesam-tools - A toolkit for Xesam compliant services https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446159 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-06-27 12:22 EST ------- I'm going to assume that the tests here are similarly not runnable. I couldn't get them to run, at least. The upstream web site seems to be down now, but I think a more specific URL would be good if possible. The only thing I'm not sure about is the license. The code doesn't have the expected license blocks, but PKG-INFO and setup.py both say "GNU LGPL 2.1" so I would have to assume LGPLv2 and not LGPLv2+ as you have. This should definitely be clarified with upstream, and "License: LGPLv2" used in the interim. Honestly that's the only thing I see that requires fixing, so you can just change it when you check in. * source files match upstream: fcaea2c7dc21ede48feed9d743560e97db4c9fceb534a808a618b3f1791a5e93 xesam-tools-0.6.1.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. ? license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. license text not included upstream. license text included in package. latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: xesam-tools = 0.6.1-1.fc10 = /usr/bin/python python(abi) = 2.5 * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * 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. -- 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