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=475040 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-06 19:03:21 EDT --- Your Source0: URL is not correct. You can use spectool -g to make sure that your sources are downloadable. I think you want: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/wake-on-lan/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz instead. Your license tag does not seem to be correct. At least the source files I looked at are GPLv2+. Where do you see the restriction to GPLv2 only? * source files match upstream. sha256sum: e0086c9b9811df2bdf763ec9016dfb1bcb7dba9fa6d7858725b0929069a12622 wol-0.7.1.tar.gz * 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. X license field does not match the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * 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: wol = 0.7.1-1.fc11 wol(x86-64) = 0.7.1-1.fc11 = /bin/sh /sbin/install-info * 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 generically named files. * scriptlets are OK (info page installation). * 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. The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package reviews recently, please consider doing one. -- 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