[Bug 468765] Review Request: hydrogen-drumkits - Additional DrumKits for Hydrogen

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Dec 18 12:50:55 UTC 2008


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=468765


Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




--- Comment #15 from Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com>  2008-12-18 07:50:53 EDT ---
APPROVED

+ rpmlint output

This is OK due to legal ACK above (might be nice to file a bug against rpmlint
to get it added)

rpmlint -i hydrogen-drumkits-0.9.3-1.20080907.fc10.src.rpm 
hydrogen-drumkits.src: W: invalid-license Green OpenMusic
The value of the License tag was not recognized.  Known values are: "AAL",
"Adobe", "ADSL", "AFL", "AGPLv1", "AGPLv3", "AMPAS BSD", "ARL", "ASL 1.0",
"ASL 1.0+", "ASL 1.1", "ASL 1.1+", "ASL 2.0", "ASL 2.0+", "APSL 2.0", "APSL
2.0+", "Artistic 2.0", "Artistic clarified", "BitTorrent", "Boost", "BSD",
"BSD with advertising", "CATOSL", "CeCILL", "CeCILL-B", "CeCILL-C", "CDDL",
"CNRI", "CPAL", "CPL", "Condor", "Copyright only", "Crystal Stacker", "DOC",
"ECL 1.0", "ECL 2.0", "eCos", "EFL 2.0", "EFL 2.0+", "Entessa", "EPL", "ERPL",
"EU Datagrid", "Fair", "FTL", "Giftware", "GL2PS", "Glide", "gnuplot", "GPL+",
"GPL+ or Artistic", "GPLv1", "GPLv2 or Artistic", "GPLv2+ or Artistic",
"GPLv2", "GPLv2 with exceptions", "GPLv2+", "GPLv2+ with exceptions", "GPLv3",
"GPLv3 with exceptions", "GPLv3+", "GPLv3+ with exceptions", "IBM", "IJG",
"ImageMagick", "iMatix", "Imlib2", "Intel ACPI", "Interbase", "ISC", "Jabber",
"JasPer", "LBNL BSD", "LGPLv2", "LGPLv2 with exceptions", "LGPLv2+", "LGPLv2+
or Artistic", "LGPLv2+ with exceptions", "LGPLv3", "LGPLv3 with exceptions",
"LGPLv3+", "LGPLv3+ with exceptions", "libtiff", "LLGPL", "LPL", "LPPL",
"mecab-ipadic", "MIT", "MIT with advertising", "Motosoto", "MPLv1.0",
"MPLv1.0+", "MPLv1.1", "MPLv1.1+", "NCSA", "NetCDF", "NGPL", "NOSL", "Naumen",
"Netscape", "Nokia", "OpenLDAP", "OpenPBS", "OReilly", "OSL 1.0", "OSL 1.0+",
"OSL 1.1", "OSL 1.1+", "OSL 2.0", "OSL 2.0+", "OSL 2.1", "OSL 2.1+", "OSL
3.0", "OSL 3.0+", "OpenSSL", "OReilly", "Phorum", "PHP", "psutils", "Public
Domain", "Python", "Qhull", "QPL", "RiceBSD", "RPSL", "Ruby", "SCRIP",
"Sendmail", "Sleepycat", "SISSL", "SLIB", "SPL", "TCL", "Teeworlds", "TMate",
"UCD", "VOSTROM", "Vim", "VNLSL", "VSL", "W3C", "WTFPL", "wxWidgets", "Xerox",
"xinetd", "YPLv1.1", "Zend", "ZPLv1.0", "ZPLv1.0+", "ZPLv2.0", "ZPLv2.0+",
"ZPLv2.1", "ZPLv2.1+", "zlib", "zlib with acknowledgement", "CDL", "FBSDDL",
"GFDL", "IEEE", "OFSFDL", "Open Publication", "Public Use", "CC-BY", "CC-BY-
SA", "CC-BY-ND", "DSL", "EFML", "Free Art", "GeoGratis", "OAL", "Arphic",
"Baekmuk", "Bitstream Vera", "Hershey", "Liberation", "Lucida", "mplus",
"OFL", "STIX", "Utopia", "XANO", "Redistributable, no modification permitted",
"Freely redistributable without restriction".

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
  lots of different drumkits but naming matches dependent package
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
  Green OpenMusic ACKed by legal
+ license matches the actual package license

+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm

86dbdb8d2f9b12690e92211d36c6fe7d  Classic-626.h2drumkit
c08d5093fc28a30a7542f0c89493e807  Classic-808.h2drumkit
cb11827e185ab5a6906967901495884b  ColomboAcousticDrumkit.h2drumkit
df1bd778148cc25d8f63a8cc7aa91fcb  ElectricEmpireKit.h2drumkit
f953edf3f4227d786df59b544370e379  HardElectro1.h2drumkit
f445c60d4625a6bfe6bb9dbac1ac0aa7  K-27_Trash_Kit.h2drumkit
4c895d59c3bc5f3322d14789de345be2  Millo-Drums_v.1.h2drumkit
2da5b8ee87bce3e67464c61ba0b722dd  Millo_MultiLayered2.h2drumkit
79ca7360784ec72959aa07c3c584d76c  Millo_MultiLayered3.h2drumkit
a9c305829cd23c28ffd1647cb5c0bdfd  VariBreaks.h2drumkit
88196a71b20a656e97e70071569dd82f  asma_davul.tar.gz

+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
  tested using koji scratch build
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun
+ does not use Prefix: /usr
+ package owns all directories it creates
n/a no duplicate files in %files
+ %defattr line
+ %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package
n/a header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
n/a devel must require the fully versioned base
n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc.
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8

Optional:

+ if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
available
+ reviewer should build the package in mock/koji
n/a the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
n/a review should test the package functions as described
+ scriptlets should be sane
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or
/usr/sbin

-- 
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.




More information about the package-review mailing list