http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26
Andrea Musuruane <musur...@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|3 |4 --- Comment #41 from Andrea Musuruane <musur...@gmail.com> 2009-01-02 14:03:15 --- (In reply to comment #40) > > [-] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming > > Guidelines. > > Use an %{alphatag} beginning with the date in YYYYMMDD format > > (this is OK) and followed by up to 16 (ASCII) alphanumeric > > characters > > of your choosing (this is not OK). For example: 20081218svn. See: > That could be read to be at 1<=charscount<=16, I guess. I had read the I think you meant 0<=charscount<=16. > guideline in conjunction with looking at another spec (ffmpeg), which doesn't > use an alphatag, there is quite a few packages in RPM Fusion that do this: > BasiliskII, SheepShaver, *madwifi, arcem, autopano-sift-C, ffmpeg, > *iscsitarget, larabie, live555, slmodem, vdrsync, x264. The change you made is OK for me. You may want to use a macro to handle the svn revision. > > [-] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual > > license. > > README.icons say that icons are under LGPLv2 > > Source files says licences is GPLv2+ > > Therefore licence must be GPLv2+ and LGPLv2, See: > Would this apply ? > "7: LGPLv2.1 gives you permission to relicense the code under any version of > the GPL since GPLv2. If you can switch the LGPLed code in this case to using > an > appropriate version of the GPL instead (as noted in the table), you can make > this combination. " > > I'm not sure what relicensing would entail: does it mean you have to adjust > every file mentioning the LGPL 2.1 to GPL2 or greater ? I think the Fedora guidelines are quite clear about this case: "If your package contains files which are under multiple, distinct, and independent licenses, then the spec must reflect this by using "and" as a separator." The change you made is OK. > I think this is probably just a temporary connection problem, since it works > for me at the moment. > > This did lead me to review the script; I adjusted the commented out command > that nukes the internally included ffmpeg sources and patches from the svn > tree > to use a find rather than rm. Yes, it was a temporary problem. I verified that the content of source archives matches the one created by the snapshot script. > > SHOULD Items: > > [=] SHOULD: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed > > files. > > Timestamps are not preserved using the original makefile. This > > should > > be patched. > Isn't the only file that is built is dvbcut executable ? It would have the > time > that the rpmbuild %build completed. A moment later %install sticks it in the > buildroot. Is that the concern you are raising ? No. There is also the man entry, whose timestamp is not preserved. This is a SHOULD item and therefore it is not mandatory. > New spec: > http://members.iinet.net.au/~timmsy/dvbcut/dvbcut.spec > srpm: > http://members.iinet.net.au/~timmsy/dvbcut/dvbcut-0.5.4-6.20090101svn138.fc9.src.rpm Not found. I found dvbcut-0.5.4-6.20090101svn138.fc10.src.rpm thought. I reviewed this. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.