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: vbindiff - Visual binary diff https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454482 ------- Additional Comments From timc@xxxxxxxxxxxx 2008-07-25 08:54 EST ------- Hi. This is just an informal review with some comments you might find helpful. The README mentions that the license can be found in the file COPYING but that file does not exist anywhere in the extracted archive. The source files in "curses" (and equivalents under win32) do not contain any license statement within them (nor does tables.h at top level). The COPYING file (or equivalent) should also be included in %doc. It would be a good idea to push these changes upstream if possible. The license for the putty.src file (modified from terminfo/ncurses) is not GPL but probably some MIT variant, this should be correctly clarified in the License: value and ideally in the package README, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing for details - ideally this change should be pushed upstream to the original author. There is a message during creating debuginfo: cpio: vbindiff-3.0_beta3/<built-in>: No such file or directory Although it doesn't seem to break the debug package. OK Rpmlint is silent OK Spec file name. NO Licensing. NO License: field matches sw. NO License included in doc. OK Spec file in American English OK Spec file legible OK Source MD5sum: 86904b2394e56089878695415121cc28 upstream and in src.rpm OK Builds on i386 OK See no reason to exclude architecture(s) ?? All build dependencies listed (mock test ??) DIDN'T TRY A MOCK BUILD OK Locales management - this package is not localized. OK Libraries (no libraries in this package) OK Not relocateble. OK Owns it's directories. OK No %file duplicates OK File permissions OK %clean target OK Consistent macro usage OK Code/permissive content (this is just code). OK No large documentation OK Doc's don't affect runtime. OK No header files OK No static libraries OK No pkgconfig file(s) OK No libraries OK No devel package OK Not a GUI application OK Does not own other package's file/dirs. OK rm -rf %{buildroot} in %install OK Valid filenames (just ASCII) OK No scriplets OK No subpackages OK No pkgconfig files OK No file dependencies -- 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