[Bug 475040] Review Request: wol - Wake On Lan client

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475040


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2008-12-06 19:03:21 EDT ---
Your Source0: URL is not correct.  You can use spectool -g to make sure that
your sources are downloadable.  I think you want:
  http://downloads.sourceforge.net/wake-on-lan/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
instead.

Your license tag does not seem to be correct.  At least the source files I
looked at are GPLv2+.  Where do you see the restriction to GPLv2 only?


* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:
   e0086c9b9811df2bdf763ec9016dfb1bcb7dba9fa6d7858725b0929069a12622  
   wol-0.7.1.tar.gz
* 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.
X license field does not match the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   wol = 0.7.1-1.fc11
   wol(x86-64) = 0.7.1-1.fc11
  =
   /bin/sh
   /sbin/install-info

* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files.
* scriptlets are OK (info page installation).
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

The package review process needs reviewers!  If you haven't done any package
reviews recently, please consider doing one.

-- 
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.