[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852



--- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System  ---
flcluster-1.0.3-1.el7, flnet-7.3.2-1.el7, flwkey-1.2.3-2.el7,
linsim-2.0.3-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852



--- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System  ---
flcluster-1.0.3-1.fc26, flnet-7.3.2-1.fc26, flwkey-1.2.3-2.fc26,
linsim-2.0.3-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2017-11-17 22:44:22



--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System  ---
flcluster-1.0.3-1.fc27, flnet-7.3.2-1.fc27, flwkey-1.2.3-2.fc27,
linsim-2.0.3-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852



--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System  ---
flcluster-1.0.3-1.fc26, flnet-7.3.2-1.fc26, flwkey-1.2.3-2.fc26,
linsim-2.0.3-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-c3bdb834df

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852



--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System  ---
flcluster-1.0.3-1.el7, flnet-7.3.2-1.el7, flwkey-1.2.3-2.el7,
linsim-2.0.3-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-5ff6d0e947

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|ON_QA



--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System  ---
flcluster-1.0.3-1.fc27, flnet-7.3.2-1.fc27, flwkey-1.2.3-2.fc27,
linsim-2.0.3-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-1f38cce05e

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852



--- Comment #24 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/flnet

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852



--- Comment #23 from Richard Shaw  ---
Thanks for the review! Repository has been requested.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852

mgans...@alice.de  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #22 from mgans...@alice.de  ---
no blockers, package is good and is accepted.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852



--- Comment #21 from Richard Shaw  ---
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #20)
> (In reply to mgans...@alice.de from comment #19)
> > Issues:
> > ===
> > 
> > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> >  Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/metainfo
> > 
> > please add
> >  %dir %{_datadir}/metainfo
> > to file section
> 
> I'll take a look at this... I don't think packages providing an appdata file
> should own that directory but nothing else seems to...

Ok, per Kalev on the devel list the filesystem package owns /usr/lib/metainfo
in F27+ and packages simply providing appdata files should not own it.

Do you consider the other ones blockers?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852



--- Comment #20 from Richard Shaw  ---
(In reply to mgans...@alice.de from comment #19)
> Issues:
> ===
> 
> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>  Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/metainfo
> 
> please add
>  %dir %{_datadir}/metainfo
> to file section

I'll take a look at this... I don't think packages providing an appdata file
should own that directory but nothing else seems to...


> - please use %{name} macro instead of flnet.

For some reason I don't like using the name macro for one off files :)


> - please inform upstream about flnet.appdata.xml file

He is aware as I had them supply links for screenshots but I'm not sure he's
interested in adding it to the project.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852



--- Comment #19 from mgans...@alice.de  ---
Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
===
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
  are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
  Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2

this seems to be a bug in fedora-review. It is correct to list gcc-c++ as a BR,
per
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequires_and_Requires


[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/metainfo

please add
 %dir %{_datadir}/metainfo
to file section

- please use %{name} macro instead of flnet.
- please inform upstream about flnet.appdata.xml file


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "GPL", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or
 later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)". 54 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/martin/rpmbuild/SPECS/flnet/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/metainfo
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[-]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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 is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
 desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires 

[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852

mgans...@alice.de  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||mgans...@online.de
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mgans...@online.de
  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852



--- Comment #18 from Richard Shaw  ---
SPEC: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flnet.spec
SRPM: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flnet-7.3.2-1.fc26.src.rpm

* Wed Nov 01 2017 Richard Shaw  - 7.3.2-1
- Update to latest upstream release.
- Add appdata file.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852

Richard Shaw  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
   Assignee|leamas.a...@gmail.com   |nob...@fedoraproject.org



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852



--- Comment #17 from Richard Shaw  ---
SPEC: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flnet.spec
SRPM: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flnet-7.3.1-1.fc24.src.rpm

* Fri Oct 28 2016 Richard Shaw  - 7.3.1-1
- Update to latest upstream release.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852



--- Comment #16 from Richard Shaw  ---
SPEC: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flnet.spec
SRPM: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flnet-7.2.6-1.fc24.src.rpm

* Tue Oct 25 2016 Richard Shaw  - 7.2.6-1
- Update to latest upstream release.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852



--- Comment #15 from Richard Shaw  ---
SPEC: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flnet.spec
SRPM: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flnet-7.2.5-1.fc23.src.rpm

* Wed Dec  2 2015 Richard Shaw  - 7.2.5-1
- Update to latest upstream release.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852



--- Comment #14 from Richard Shaw  ---
Alec, do you have time to finish this review?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852



--- Comment #13 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com ---
Do you still see the licensing as a blocker?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852



--- Comment #12 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com ---
SPEC: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flnet.spec
SRPM: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flnet-7.2.3-1.fc21.src.rpm

* Tue May  5 2015 Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com - 7.2.3-1
- Update to latest upstream release.
- Build with external xmlrpc library.
- Update package to use %%license where appropriate.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852



--- Comment #11 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #6)
 Nor am I, and I might have given wrong (well, incomplete ;) ) info on this
 earlier. If you choose to promote, you also need to patch the sources  [1].
 Although not that complicated in this case, it might be easier just to
 expand the license tag.
 
 [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v3HowToUpgrade

Ok, I've had lots of other things going on but am now getting back to reviews.

After reading the link this seems to be for actually upgrading your whole
project, not just allowing for promotion. I don't think any of the source files
need to be physically altered as long as they are of the or any later version
variety.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852



--- Comment #10 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com ---
Ok, not a guidelines violation:

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-May/199059.html

I think that was the only blocker...

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852



--- Comment #8 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com ---
Ping?!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852



--- Comment #9 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com ---
I need to check if this one is affected but several of his projects bundle the
library xmlrpcpp...

Well, kind of... Upstream is pretty much dead and he has altered it quite a bit
to suit his purposes BUT he bundles is within several of his projects.

He doesn't really want to support as a separate library, which I understand so
I've been working on him to see what we can do but haven't found a suitable
solution.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852

Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||leamas.a...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|leamas.a...@gmail.com



--- Comment #2 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com ---
I will do this review, assigning.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852



--- Comment #3 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com ---

Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

Issues:
 - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
   Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
   GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), LGPL (v2 or later)
   (with incorrect FSF address), Unknown or generated, GPL (v3 or
   later). 34 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
   in /home/al/tmp/FedoraReview/1060852-flnet/licensecheck.txt
 --- They are all compatible, but a license break-down is required.
   The easiest is probably to use (GPLv2+ and GPLVv3 and LPGL2.1), but
   promoting some license(s) is an option.
 - According to licensecheck some files have wrong FSF address. Please
   file a bug or so upstream about this issue.


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
 supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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 is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
 are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
 file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
 in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
 from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: 

[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852



--- Comment #4 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com ---
Created attachment 859312
  -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=859312action=edit
Patch to fix the bad FSF addresses (to be sent upstream).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852



--- Comment #5 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com ---
Yeah, I'm still not really good with licenses... Assuming we uprev the lower
GPL files, should we sayGPLv3+ and LGPLv2+ and MIT?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852



--- Comment #6 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com ---
Nor am I, and I might have given wrong (well, incomplete ;) ) info on this
earlier. If you choose to promote, you also need to patch the sources  [1].
Although not that complicated in this case, it might be easier just to expand
the license tag.

[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v3HowToUpgrade

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852



--- Comment #7 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com ---
Whoops, no MIT in this one, I was in the wrong directory (fllog instead of
flnet, that's a separate review!).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852



--- Comment #1 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com ---
This package built on koji: 
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6487097

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review