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=455067 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841 | --- Comment #9 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-08-25 03:42:56 EDT --- For 2.0.2-2: (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #4) > > * License > > - As far as I verified the source code, the license tag should > > be "GPLv2+". > Official site ( http://ferm.foo-projects.org/) says: "Licensed under the GPLv2" - Well I assume the site you quoted is using wrong license tag, because - We guess under what license the package is released by checking the whole codes in the tarball - Some files in the tarball declares explicitly the license is under GPLv2+ (see files under doc/). (I guess the upstream are using "GPLv2" on the site with the meaning of "GPL version 2 and any later" :) ) However as "GPLv2" is more strict than "GPLv2+", for now I accept "GPLv2" license tag. However please ask the upsteam which is correct. > > * Macros usage consistency > > - When using { on macros, please use { for all macros (except for some cases) > > consistently. You use %{_mandir} and %_sbindir , for example. > > %_sbindir replaced by %{_sbindir} > Is there any guidelines about it or is it only by the aesthetic considerations? - Only cosmetic issue > > (In reply to comment #3) > > > (In reply to comment #2) > > > > - "system/firewalls" is not a standard Group (please refer to > > > > $ rpmlint -I non-standard-group > > > Thanks. I'm change it to "Applications/System". > > > But another question is why rpmlint was silent?? > > - On my system rpmlint warned about this.s > You are using stable version of the rpmlint or rawhide? May be I can tune > warning level somewhere? > > $ rpm -q rpmlint > rpmlint-0.84-2.fc9.noarch - rpmlint-0.84-2.fc10.noarch. Maybe the dependent packages are related. Now: - This package itself is okay - Your other review requests seem good to some extent. (There are some apparent issues which need fixing, however I don't guess I can have a time to review other review requests of yours as I am already reviewing 20 requests... I hope someone else will review other requests of yours.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- This package (ferm) is APPROVED by mtasaka ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please follow the procedure written on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join from "Install the Client Tools (Koji)". As I found your name in FAS I am sponsoring you now. If you want to import this package into Fedora 8/9, you also have to look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UpdatesSystem/Bodhi-info-DRAFT (after once you rebuilt this package on koji Fedora rebuilding system). If you have questions, please ask me. -- 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