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=464171
Orcan Ogetbil <orcanbahri(a)yahoo.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |orcanbahri(a)yahoo.com
--- Comment #1 from Orcan Ogetbil <orcanbahri(a)yahoo.com> 2008-09-28 22:51:39 EDT
---
-Package meets naming, versioning, macro guidelines.
-Disttag is present
-Build root it proper.
* License: Although the COPYING file claims GPL2v+ none of the source
code/program output/accompanying docs mention about the license (except
LaTeXPlugin/util/eps2png which claims GPL). I think the appropriate license
should be GPL+ . Please see:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses
-Latest version is packaged.
-Requires/BuildRequires are proper.
*%clean is not present, please fix that.
-mock built the package
-package installs and runs as desired.
*This is a python package. Please make it noarch as it does not have binaries.
Hence no need for debuginfo package.
*rpmlint issues:
** SRPM complains about no %clean section, see above.
-- SRPM complains about no %build section. This is a python software, no %build
is required and afaik this doesn't violate fedora guidelines.
** RPM complains about zero-length-file. Please check that if this file is
really required, otherwise remove it from the package.
** RPM complains about no binary/only-non-binary-in-usr-lib. See above.
-final provides and requires are sane.
-package owns the directories it created.
-package doesn't claim any directory that it doesn't own
*We recommend %defattr(-,root,root,-)
-doc's are in proper place.
-no duplicate files in %files
-code, not content
-no scriptlets
---------
Please fix or defend the items I identified by *
--
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.