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: beldi - Belug Linux Distribution Burner https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249949 ------- Additional Comments From fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2008-07-13 16:42 EST ------- Review for 145e2eb18b87a2dc7a12ce237c9c75c1 beldi-0.9.16-2.src.rpm: OK - MUST: rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/beldi-* 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. OK - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines Ok - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec OK - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines FAIL - MUST: The License field in the package spec file does not match the actual license: Code is GPLv3+, but License tag is GPLv2+ FAIL - MUST: License text from source is included in %doc, but the License is out of date (GPLv2) OK - MUST: The spec file is written in American English OK - MUST: The spec file for the package is legible OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package match the upstream source by md5 420555ec522884dcb771c98c0960a1f5 OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on i386 FAIL - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, but gtkglextmm-devel is only needed when building with --enable-opengl. The OpenGL interface looks really cool and works here and so I suggest to include it. What do you think? Pigment support (requires pigment-devel >= 0.3 and gstreamer-plugins-base-devel) is still experimental and does not build here, so I suggest not to enable it. OK - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates OK - MUST: The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly OK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} OK - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines OK - MUST: The package contains code, or permissible content OK - MUST: Files included in %doc do not affect the runtime of the application OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives OK - MUST: The package contains a GUI application and includes a %{name}.desktop file that file is properly installed with desktop-file-install OK - MUST: The packages does not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK - MUST: The package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} at the beginning of %install OK - MUST: All filenames in the package are valid UTF-8 FIX - SHOULD: Please bug upstream to include an updated copy of the license text. FIX? - SHOULD: Could you include a German translation of description and summary? FIX - SHOULD: Typo in description: less -> least, consist -> consists. IMHO the description could be simplified a little: -----> BeLDi, the Belug (Linux) Distribution Burner, is a program designed to burn distributions. It is designed to require the least administration and knowledge as possible. BeLDi has a intuitive graphic user interface where the main screen shows the available distributions in a list. If the user selects one, he will be asked which version and architecture he wants to burn. Once the burn procedure starts a bar shows its progress. All user operations can be completed with the mouse or a touchscreen. <----- OK - SHOULD: The package builds in mock OK - SHOULD: The package functions as described OK - SHOULD: Latest version of the application So the only blocker is OpenGL. The license text is no real issue for me as long as you fix the license tag in the spec. NEEDSWORK -- 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