[Bug 227873] Review Request: sear-media - media files for the sear game 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 report.

Summary: Review Request: sear-media - media files for the sear game client
Alias: sear-media

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227873





------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com  2007-02-20 12:43 EST -------
==== REVIEW CHECKLIST ====
- rpmlint output
W: sear-media hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/sear/sear-media-0.6/castle/.dot_it.sh.swp

Looks like this file can safely be removed.
- package named according to package naming guidelines
- spec file name matches %{name}
- package meets packaging guidelines
- licensed with open source compatible license
X license tag matches actual license
- license file included in %doc
- spec written in American english
- spec file legible
- sources match upstream
c136577e5ca64dd39a91d47c0c4c2ba6  sear-media-20070206.tar.gz
- package successfully compiles and builds on FC-6 x86_64
- all build dependencies listed in BR
- no locales
- no shared libraries
- package is not relocatable
X package does not own all directories it creates
- no duplicates in %files
- file permissions set properly
- package contains proper %clean
- macro usage consistent
- package contains permissible content
- no large documentation
- files in %doc do not affect runtime
- no header files or static libraries
- no pkgconfig files
- no library files with suffix
- no need for devel subpackage
- no libtool archives
- not a GUI application
- does not own files or directories owned by other packages


==== MUST FIX ====
- Remove .swp file found by rpmlint
- LICENSING.txt is confusing.  First it says the artwork is GPL, but then goes
on to say that the actual license is modifable under the GFDL, and then they
list sections of documentation which are clearly broilerplate sections in an
unmodified license file, for example "Sections being LIST THEIR TITLES", and
"modify this document" when the document itself is a license file.  I guess this
needs to be clarified with upstream? It seems they do not really care.  I guess
I also have to ask why you license this as just GPL instead of GPL/GFDL.
- the package creates a directory "sear" under /usr/share which it does not own,
nor does it pull in any packages which own this directory in Requries.
- README and COPYING.txt probably dont need to be included twice in the file
list, LICENSING.txt explicitly mentions "files under this directory" so I guess
this has to be in both locations, however the license *is* modifyable under the
GFDL... ;-)


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.