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=670127
--- Comment #15 from Bill Nottingham <notting(a)redhat.com> 2011-03-28 22:04:15 EDT
---
So, looking at the updated version (review appears to have stalled)?:
- Package meets naming and packaging guidelines - OK
- Spec file matches base package name. - OK
- Spec has consistant macro usage. - OK
- Meets Packaging Guidelines. - OK
- License - ***
The license is declared as GPLv3, and that's what's included in the tarball.
However, the only source file with a license is LGPLv2+.
- License field in spec matches - OK (matches COPYING)
- License file included in package - OK
- Spec in American English - OK
- Spec is legible - OK.
- Sources match upstream md5sum:
284162a6a1a6b7762a89b021833a12835a334e535061626269096fb8a96c7e78
/home/notting/prog/rpm/source/the-board-0.1.2.tar.bz2
OK
- Package needs ExcludeArch - N/A
- BuildRequires correct - OK
- Spec handles locales/find_lang - OK
- Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. - N/A
- Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. - OK
- Package is code or permissible content. - OK
- Doc subpackage needed/used. - N/A
- Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - OK
- Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. - OK
- Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun - OK
- .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig - N/A
- .so files in -devel subpackage. - OK
- -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - OK
- .la files are removed. - OK
- Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file - OK
- Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. - OK (tested x86_64)
- Package has no duplicate files in %files. - OK
- Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. - OK
- Package owns all the directories it creates. - OK
- No rpmlint output:
the-board.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary the-board
the-board-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
the-board-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tb-js-unit
the-board-nautilus.x86_64: W: no-documentation
These are all upstream issues, so OK.
- final provides and requires are sane - OK
SHOULD Items:
- Should build in mock. - OK (tested x86_64)
- Should function as described. - OK
- Should have sane scriptlets. - OK
- Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. -
OK
- Should have dist tag - OK
- Should package latest version - OK
So, the only issue I can see is the license mismatch. Probably just requires a
clarification from upstream that GPLv3 is their intent?
--
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.