http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=399
Michel Salim <michel.sylvan(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |michel.sylvan(a)gmail.com
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from Michel Salim <michel.sylvan(a)gmail.com> 2009-02-23 18:42:09 ---
ReviewTemplate
MUST
+ rpmlint: OK
+ package name: OK
+ spec file name: OK
+ package guideline-compliant: OK
+ license complies with guidelines
? license field accurate
N/A license file not deleted
The license is supposed to be some form of GPL, but the one upstream reference
to it is in the .src.rpm. Presumably it is thus any version of GPL (GPL+) but
more clarification would be nice.
+ spec in US English
+ spec legible
+ source matches upstream
+ builds under >= 1 archs, others excluded
+ build dependencies complete
+ own all directories
+ no dupes in %files
+ permission
+ %clean RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ macros used consistently
+ Package contains code
+ desktop file uses desktop-file-install
+ clean buildroot before install
+ filenames UTF-8
SHOULD
- if license text missing, ask upstream to include it
- desc and summary contain translations if available
+ package build in mock on all architectures
+ package functioned as described
+ scriplets are sane
+ require package not files
I'm approving this review, but if you could verify the licensing situation with
upstream, that'd be great.
APPROVED.
--
Configure bugmail:
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.