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=483501 Parag AN(पराग) <panem...@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org |panem...@gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) <panem...@gmail.com> 2009-02-02 01:21:49 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock. koji build => http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1098612 - rpmlint is NOT silent for SRPM and for RPM. python-fiat.src: W: invalid-license LGPL+ python-fiat.noarch: W: no-documentation python-fiat.noarch: W: invalid-license LGPL+ + source files match upstream url cc53f9d567ed71929cf94a9a83f3a027 FIAT-0.3.4.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + no %doc files present to install. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + BuildRequires are proper. + defattr usage is correct. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + Not a GUI App. Suggestions 1) License tag should be LGPLv2+ as described in Licensing page as "A GPL or LGPL licensed package that lacks any statement of what version that it's licensed under in the source code/program output/accompanying docs is technically licensed under *any* version of the GPL or LGPL, not just the version in whatever COPYING file they include. Note that this is LGPLv2+, not LGPL+, because version 2 was the first version of LGPL. " 2) you should ask upstream to include license text file in next upstream release. APPROVED. -- 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 Fedorafirstname.lastname@example.org http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review