Bug 304861
| Summary: | Review Request: eclipse-demos - Eclipse screencasts | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Andrew Overholt <overholt> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jason Tibbitts <j> |
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, notting |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | j:
fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2007-10-09 22:03:11 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Andrew Overholt
2007-09-25 12:08:45 UTC
This is pretty much trivial. rpmlint says: eclipse-demos.noarch: W: invalid-license Open Publication License According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing, the License: tag should be "Open Publication". This license is also only acceptable without the optional clauses in the sixth section. Actually I can't tell if anything in the sixth section of the license applies at all, because those options are supposed to be used in the incorporation by reference, and there's nothing to attach such a reference to unless they're in the oggs somehow. I'm going to assume not. Also, you should %doc the license file. The only other question I have is regarding the totem requirement. I can view this without using totem (from a KDE system, say, or one with mplayer), and I could just serve the files via the web or something. Frankly I'd just drop it. * source files match upstream: 0a3a42da854f4f20c93baa80658ade0c08b9ae66edfc174343f9ba41f9605655 eclipse-demos-0.0.1.tar.bz2 * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license (but should use approved short form) * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (none) * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (x86_64, development). * package installs properly X rpmlint has a valid complaint. ? final provides and requires; totem probably shouldn't be there. eclipse-demos-0.0.1-1.fc8.noarch.rpm eclipse-demos = 0.0.1-1.fc8 = ? totem * %check is not present; a test suite isn't really applicable. I watched a couple of the videos and they look OK to me. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. Thanks for the review. I've updated the License field and dropped the totem requirement. New spec and SRPM: http://overholt.ca/eclipse-demos.spec http://overholt.ca/eclipse-demos-0.0.1-2.fc7.src.rpm Looks great; rpmlint is quiet and the issues I had are fixed. APPROVED New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: eclipse-demos Short Description: Eclipse screencasts Owners: overholt,jjohnstn Branches: InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes cvs done. Can we close this? It looks like the package has been built for F8 and pushed to the repos. Oops, sorry, forgot to close. |