[Bug 519986] media-player-id - Data files describing media player capabilities

[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=519986


Bill Nottingham <notting at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |notting at redhat.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #1 from Bill Nottingham <notting at redhat.com>  2009-08-28 15:06:28 EDT ---
MUST items:
- 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 - ***

1) This package consists of nothing but configuration files and a udev rules
file. These are configuration, and not necessarily copyrightable.
2) Spot says "use a permissive license just to be sure."
3) Which implies the BSD in the tarball is OK...
4) except it still states:

Copyright (c) The Regents of the University of California.

which is almost certainly wrong, in the case that the package *is*
copyrightable. Should be Christophe & Martin, or whomever.

- License field in spec matches - OK, as it stands
- License file included in package - OK
- Spec in American English - OK
- Spec is legible. - OK
- Sources match upstream md5sum:

878fd1b6a8baccf0ce46d29f2fde559a40d6573c  media-player-id-1.tar.gz

OK.

- Package needs ExcludeArch - ***

Might want 'ExcludeArch: s390 s390x <other similar things>'. But I doubt it
matters that much.

- BuildRequires correct - OK. 
- Spec handles locales/find_lang - N/A
- Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. - OK
- Package has a correct %clean section. - OK
- Package has correct buildroot - OK
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
- Package is code or permissible content. - OK
- Doc subpackage needed/used. - N/A
- Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - OK

- Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. - OK (tested F12)
- 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
- No rpmlint output. - OK
- final provides and requires are sane: - OK

Can we get them to fix the licensing?

-- 
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.