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=456549 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Summary|Review Request: pmpu - GUI |Review Request: pmpu - GUI |for distributed VCS's |for distributed VCS's --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-08-16 17:57:49 EDT --- Builds fine and rpmlint is silent. The only statement of a license I can find anywhere within the package is in the "About" dialog, which says GPLv2. You should ask upstream to provide proper licensing information, and in the interim you should make a note in your spec indicating where you discovered that this package is GPLv2 licensed (which would have saved me the time searching for it). There is no need to explicitly disable the debuginfo package if you have BuildArch: noarch. It would be good to package the KNOWNBUGS, RELEASE_TESTS and TODO files as %doc, especially given how this software is in an early state. There is no reason to explicitly require python (although it doesn't really hurt anything). * source files match upstream: 53aca186c7225aacb4fb724ac4ba6835129496937e126f15bddfece3ddd04aa0 pmpu-0.2.tar.bz2 * 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 (as far as I can tell). * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. * 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: pmpu = 0.2-1.fc10 = /usr/bin/python PyQt4 ? python python(abi) = 2.5 * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I installed the program and it seems to run OK, although I don't have any repositories handy. * 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. -- 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