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=518446
Michel Alexandre Salim <michael.silvanus(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michael.silvanus(a)gmail.com> 2009-09-03
00:18:57 EDT ---
APPROVED
Everything looks fine. Note the licensing question mark below, though.
Koji F-12 build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1651516
MUST
OK rpmlint
OK package name
OK spec file name
OK package guideline-compliant
OK license complies with guidelines
OK license field accurate:
assuming the + in GPLv2+ from other similar packages
perhaps nag upstream to put license header in the source file, per
GPL requirement
(phew! I'm definitely starting to prefer the GPL-compatible CeCILL for my
own work)
OK license file not deleted
OK spec in US English
OK spec legible
OK source matches upstream
OK builds under >= 1 archs, others excluded (Koji)
OK build dependencies complete
OK locales handled using %find_lang, no %{_datadir}/locale
OK own all directories
OK no dupes in %files
OK permission
OK %clean RPM_BUILD_ROOT
OK macros used consistently
OK Package contains code
OK clean buildroot before install
OK filenames UTF-8
SHOULD
FIXME if license text missing, ask upstream to include it
license text not missing, but license header is
OK package build in mock on all architectures
? package functioned as described
will take your word on it; setting it loose on a multi-gigabyte movie/music
library is not recommended!
OK require package not files
--
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.