[Bug 567110] Review Request: libucil - Library to render text and graphic overlays onto video images
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Feb 25 12:13:56 UTC 2010
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=567110
Thomas Janssen <thomasj at fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Janssen <thomasj at fedoraproject.org> 2010-02-25 07:13:51 EST ---
Ok, this is a re-review request due to upstream name change.
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License
OK - License field in spec matches
XX - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
be48e766945a9a54bdf50fc0bbe39200 libucil-0.9.8.tar.gz
NN - Package needs ExcludeArch
OK - BuildRequires correct
NN - Spec handles locales/find_lang
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
NN - Doc subpackage needed/used.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
OK - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
OK - .so files in -devel subpackage.
OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
OK - .la files are removed.
NN - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - final provides and requires are sane:
Issues:
License included in the tar says GPLv3+ But the source says GPLv2+. Would be
nice to know what upstream really want. Though i cant find anything that says
it's considered a blocker.
I have checked for obsoletes and provides. I had a chat in IRC with the
maintainer and this seems to be the sane way.
APPROVED
--
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