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=226546 --- Comment #3 from Ondrej Vasik <[email protected]> 2009-11-27 11:54:25 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > - MUST(4): The License field in spec match the actual license Ok, used LGPLv2+ instead of LGPLv2 > - MUST(6): The sources used to build the package must match the upstream > source, as provided in the spec URL Must be some kind of alumnit temporary shutdown, I downloaded new version of wvdial (1.61) from there ~2 weeks ago... > Comments: > > 1) Checking RPM_BUILD_ROOT != / is not necessary > > per Packaging Guidelines ( > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean ): > > In the past, some packages checked that %{buildroot} was not / before > > deleting it. This is not necessary in Fedora, .... > > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is enough Ok, changed... > 2) %attr in %files section is used too much > > %attr(0755,root,root) %{_bindir}/* > %attr(0644,root,root) %{_mandir}/man1/* > %attr(0644,root,root) %{_mandir}/man5/* > > these are default permissions, thus not required to explicitly add there Ok, removed... > 3) too much wildcards under %files section > > If upstream makes some changes in tarball and add/remove some files, this is > not going to catch anything. It's good practice to list at least all files > under %{_bindir}. This will let you know if there is any new/missing one. files under %{_bindir} and man pages listed more specifically. > 4) License > > There is no license info in the package except COPYING - LGPL. This means > License tag should be set to LGPLv2+ > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing : > > """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.""" Ok, changed LGPLv2 to LGPLv2+ > 5) Versioned requires ( > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requires ) > > > First, if the lowest possible requirement is so old that nobody has a > > version older than that installed on any target distribution release, > > there's no need to include the version in the dependency at all. In that > > case we know the available software is new enough. For example, the version > > in gtk+-devel 1.2 dependency above is unnecessary for all Red Hat Linux > > distributions since (at least) release 6.2. As a rule of thumb, if the > > version is not required, don't add it just for fun. > > all 'ppp' versions (even in old RHELs) are newer than version specified, > please > remove it Removed versioned requires... > 6)Url and Source0 links does not work > > wget http://alumnit.ca/download/wvdial-1.61.tar.gz > --2009-11-27 16:16:56-- http://alumnit.ca/download/wvdial-1.61.tar.gz > Resolving alumnit.ca... 69.196.152.118 > Connecting to alumnit.ca|69.196.152.118|:80... failed: Connection refused. > > > wget 'http://alumnit.ca/wiki/?WvDial' > --2009-11-27 16:17:30-- http://alumnit.ca/wiki/?WvDial > Resolving alumnit.ca... 69.196.152.118 > Connecting to alumnit.ca|69.196.152.118|:80... failed: Connection refused. I guess it is temporary issue... we'll see on Monday... > 7) Missing info for patches > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment > > Every patch in spec file should contain a comment describing: > * why is that patch used - bug number is enough > * upstream information - was it sent upstream (and when)? taken from upstream? > was it accepted/rejected? is this patch "fedora specific" ? I added the informations why the patch is used with bug numbers/short comments. Some patches - like remotename and 9nums are Fedora specific. Compuserve patch is just change to use more new Compuserve style (which increases the chance of succesful connection). That one wvdial.conf manpage patch - I don't know, I'll try to submit it once the website will be up. Anyway the package is not really "alive" - current update was just to fix issues with new gcc/glibc. Fixed in rawhide ... wvdial-1.61-2.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
