Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=952632

--- Comment #2 from Eugene A. Pivnev <ti.eug...@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> [?]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.

I use %cmake and _smp_mflags macros. I think - this is enough.

> [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.

Fixed.

> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>      Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
>      "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown
>      or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
>      licensecheck in /home/makerpm/952632-qtermwidget/licensecheck.txt
> ## This probably qualifies as a Multiple Licencing Scenario:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
> LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios you should add the other
> licenses to your License: string, with "and"s between them.

GPLv3 is in unused code (pyqt4 example).
As for LGPL vs GPL - according to compatibility matrix
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#GPL_Compatibility_Matrix)
I can use LGPLv2.1+ code if publish package under GPLv2+.
It is.

> [!]: Dist tag is present.

Fixed.

> [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
> ## %{_libdir}/qt4/plugins/designer/lib%{name}plugin.so should be under
> %files, not '%files devel' 

Fixed.

> [?]: Package functions as described.

This package will used in qterminal package. Now you can test it using OBS
packages: http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/X11:/QtDesktop/

> [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.

Fixed.

> [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
>      architectures.

See Koji links in 1st comments.

> [!]: %check is present and all tests pass.

"make check" not supported - so %check section is not need:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25check_section

> ## "Environment" may not be the best term for your -devel package

Fixed.

> ## Should include some indicator of what your patch file does and what
> action with upstream you have taken, see:

Fixed.

Thank you for a good job.

New URLs:

Spec URL: http://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qtermwidget/qtermwidget.spec
SRPM URL:
http://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qtermwidget/qtermwidget-0.4.0-2.fc18.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=AKWxOncXpN&a=cc_unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

Reply via email to