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: xvarstar - an astronomical program used for searching GCVS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445010 ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2008-07-23 00:04 EST ------- ok, I went through my review checklist here and found just one issue... OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. See below - License See below - License field in spec matches See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 9d42b1516dc487e57e1d6a1c25fd8820 xvarstar-0.9.tar.gz 9d42b1516dc487e57e1d6a1c25fd8820 xvarstar-0.9.tar.gz.orig OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install OK - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version Issues: 1. The License here seems to me to be "GPLv2+" Note that the source files all have the "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version." Do you see any place where this is not the case? Michael: Can you update that? Or explain why it's not the case? -- 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