Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458408 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-08-09 20:50:12 EDT --- License seems to be MIT, not BSD. It's just the " Old Style with legal disclaimer" from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT with the MIT references removed or replaced. You probably don't want to use %{__mv} and %{__rm} in %prep but instead want the non-macro versions to match the rest of your spec. * source files match upstream: 6c754405c1b9af2a28ba0975058ef8a38da230bc8c8e0874aebcbe2ff24dee7d vttest.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named and is cleanly written X macros not used consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. X license field should read "MIT". * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (none) * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: vttest = 20071216-1.fc10 vttest(x86-64) = 20071216-1.fc10 = vttest-debuginfo-20071216-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm vttest-debuginfo = 20071216-1.fc10 vttest-debuginfo(x86-64) = 20071216-1.fc10 = * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I ran this manually in the mock chroot and it seems to work fine. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * 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. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review