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=452107 Terje Røsten <terjeros@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #12 from Terje Røsten <terjeros@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-20 04:12:50 EDT --- Review Guidelines MUST items: - [OK] rpmlint output: - [OK] package name - [OK] %{name}.spec - [OK] Packaging Guidelines - [-] Licensing Guidelines GPLv2+ is correct, however some files: src-common/test* are under Academic Free License version 2.0 Comment? Contact upstream. - [OK] License Field in spec - [-] License text in %doc Seems like LICENSE.txt is missing the "and later" which is present in files. - [OK] Spec file in en_US - [OK] legible spec file - [OK] source matches upstream md5sum ContextFreeSource2.1.tgz* 477242e74c4f953ceca7bf06e944a46e ContextFreeSource2.1.tgz 477242e74c4f953ceca7bf06e944a46e ContextFreeSource2.1.tgz.rpm - [OK] compiles successfully http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=889881 - N/A %find_lang - N/A shared libs - N/A not relocatable - [OK] directory ownership - [OK] no duplicate files in %files - [OK] proper permissions on files, %defattr present - [OK] %clean section cleans %{buildroot} - [OK] consistently uses macros - [OK] package contains code - N/A large docs - [OK] %doc files do not affect runtime behaviour - N/A header files in -devel - N/A static libs in -static - N/A foo.pc files - N/A libfoo.so.1.1 - N/A no devel package - N/A no .la archives - N/A desktop file - [OK] Does not own files/dirs owned by other packages - [OK] %install cleans out %{buildroot} first - [OK] all filenames are valid ASCII and thus UTF-8 - N/A Scriptlets Summary: everything seems fine except some licenses issues: - a lot of files are missing license headers - there are at least two licenses here GPLv2+ and Academic Free License version 2.0 - LICENSE.txt seems to be GPLv2. I would recommend to contact upstream about these issues. Pedantic: - remove extra space in version and release tag. -- 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