Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-12 19:52 EST ------- Thanks for the update, Jeff. For the record here is the rpmlint output now: publican.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 86, tab: line 1) which you may want to fix before importing to cvs, and: publican.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libxslt publican.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided documentation-devel which are ok. (BTW I filed a bug to have po2xml moved from kdesdk to a separate subpackage to avoid the huge dependency on kdesdk.) Updating the remaining MUST items from the review in comment 87: [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source 8e3b3709c1daad154be9759a6c8ee443 publican-0.29.tgz [+] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. [+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. So AFAICT all review MUST items are now satisfied, and all the major points raised have been addressed I think. I am not a license lawyer obviously, but the licensing seems reasonable enough to me - if there should still be issues with the interactions of the licenses I hope they can be ironed out later if necessary. Thanks for the review. Package is APPROVED for inclusion in Fedora. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
