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=576591
Terje Røsten <terjeros(a)phys.ntnu.no> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |terjeros(a)phys.ntnu.no
Status Whiteboard|NotReady |
Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #18 from Terje Røsten <terjeros(a)phys.ntnu.no> 2011-01-28 13:39:42 EST
---
Formal review:
ok - package meets naming and versioning guidelines
! - source files match upstream:
no tarball available
ok - specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros
consistently
ok - dist tag is present
ok - build root is correct
! - license field matches the actual license
most parts is GPLv2+, however some files has unclear license:
bar.c
cidr.c
getpath.c
ipcsum.c
mode.c
tr.c
most *.h files are missing license info.
You must contact the author (Gerard Paul Java) about these problems.
ok - license is open source-compatible
ok - license text included in package
ok - latest version is being packaged
ok - BuildRequires are proper and compiler flags are appropriate
koji is happy, however there are some warning you might want to look at:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=2748127&name=build.log
ok - %clean is present
ok - package builds in koji
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2748127
ok - package installs properly, even works
ok - debuginfo package looks complete
! rpmlint is silent
invalid-url Source0:
https://fedorahosted.org/releases/i/p/iptraf-ng/iptraf-ng-1.0.3.55.gae6e....
HTTP Error 404: Not Found
incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.2-3 ['1.0.3.55.gae6e.dirty-1.fc13',
'1.0.3.55.gae6e.dirty-1']
ok - final provides and requires are sane
ok - owns the directories it creates
ok -doesn't own any directories it shouldn't
ok -no duplicates in %files
ok -file permissions are appropriate
ok- documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary
ok -%docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package
Summary:
o include the obsolete/provides in comment #15.
o upload a tarball
o fix changelog
o fix the license issue
--
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.