[Bug 2200] Review request: get-flash-videos - Download vflash videos from websites

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2200

--- Comment #10 from Richard <hobbes1069 at gmail.com> 2012-03-29 15:42:46 CEST ---
+: OK
-: must be fixed
=: should be fixed (at your discretion)
?: Question or clairification needed
N: not applicable

MUST:
[+] rpmlint output: shown in comment.
[+] follows package naming guidelines
[+] spec file base name matches package name
[+] package meets the packaging guidelines
[+] package uses a Fedora approved license: ASL 2.0
[+] license field matches the actual license.
[+] license file is included in %doc: ???
[+] spec file is in American English
[+] spec file is legible
[+] sources match upstream: recursive diff on git checkout produced no output
[+] package builds on at least one primary arch: Tested F16 x86_64
[N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch
[+] all build requirements in BuildRequires
[N] spec file handles locales properly
[N] ldconfig in %post and %postun
[+] no bundled copies of system libraries
[+] no relocatable packages
[+] package owns all directories that it creates
[+] no files listed twice in %files
[+] proper permissions on files
[+] consistent use of macros
[+] code or permissible content
[N] large documentation in -doc
[+] no runtime dependencies in %doc
[N] header files in -devel
[N] static libraries in -static
[N] .so in -devel
[N] -devel requires main package
[+] package contains no libtool archives
[N] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install/validate
[+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages
[+] all filenames in UTF-8

SHOULD:
[-] query upstream for license text
[N] description and summary contains available translations
[+] package builds in mock
[+] package builds on all supported arches: Tested x86_64
[?] package functions as described: Not tested
[N] sane scriptlets
[N] subpackages require the main package
[N] placement of pkgconfig files
[N] file dependencies versus package dependencies
[N] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts

Ok, so it looks like the license text is a "should" and not a "must" so it's
not a blocker but probably should be corrected.

Go ahead and post an updated spec and SRPM (don't forget to update
README.fedora if you haven't already) with the license verbage updated and I'll
approve it.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.