https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263941



--- Comment #12 from Lubomir Rintel <[email protected]> ---
* Named correctly
* Versioned correctly
* Packaging the latest version
* License good for fedora
* rpmlint mostly happy (see below)
* Builds fine in mock
* Dependencies sane
* Fileslist sane
* SPEC file clean and legible

0.) License tag not correct

> License:        GPLv2

It seems to be "GPLv2+" (there's an or later version clause).

1.) Please add comments that would describe the upstreaming status of the
patches

> Patch0:         tayga-0.9.2_redhat_initscripts_and_systemd.patch
> Patch1:         tayga-0.9.2_cflags_override.patch

Have you send them upstream? Is there a mailing list or bug tracker reference?

2.) Why do you turn off PIE on ppc64?

> # PIE hardening seems to fail on ppc64

If this is really the case, please add a more descriptive comment (error
output).

3.) You're missing the %defattr tag

It's not needed for current RPM, but seems like you're targetting old RHEL
versions as well?

4.) You're installing a service with name of a templated service:

> ln -s %{_unitdir}/%{name}@.service 
> %{buildroot}%{_unitdir}/%{name}@example.service

This makes no sense. systemd would probably just ignore that. 'systemctl enable
tayga@example' would make the link in the proper place; just drop that line.

5.) rpmlint complains:

> tayga.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/tayga/COPYING
> The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or
> misspelled.  Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file,
> possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.

This is something the upstream would need to fix; you may want to let them
know. Obviously not a review blocker.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
[email protected]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

Reply via email to