Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gnome-screensaver-frogs - GNOME Screensaver Slideshow of Frogs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225716 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-29 16:40 EST ------- - rpmlint checks return: # rpmlint ~/gnome-screensaver-frogs-0.2-2.src.rpm W: gnome-screensaver-frogs invalid-license CC Attribution 2.0/CC Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0/Public Domain # rpmlint /home/wolfy/reports/gnome-screensaver-frogs/gnome-screensaver-frogs-0.2-2.noarch.rpm W: gnome-screensaver-frogs invalid-license CC Attribution 2.0/CC Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0/Public Domain It's the first time I see several licenses listed in the License tag, but since all of them are GPL compatible and you are the expert in this area, I'll trust you. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (CC Attribution 2.0/CC Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0/Public Domain ) OK, text in %doc, matches source, full list of files + corresponding licenses included - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - nothing to compile, the package is just a collection of pictures - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok [*] - %clean ok - macro use consistent - only content (pictures) - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - the included .desktop file is installed under the gnome screenserver hierarchy Note: [*] I would have preferred %defaultattr(-,root,root,-) APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
