[Bug 483501] Review Request: python-fiat - Generation of arbitrary order instances of the Lagrange elements

[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=483501


Parag AN(पराग) <panemade at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |panemade at gmail.com
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |panemade at gmail.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+




--- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade at gmail.com>  2009-02-02 01:21:49 EDT ---

Review:
+ package builds in mock.
koji build => http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1098612
- rpmlint is NOT silent for SRPM and for RPM.
python-fiat.src: W: invalid-license LGPL+
python-fiat.noarch: W: no-documentation
python-fiat.noarch: W: invalid-license LGPL+

+ source files match upstream url
cc53f9d567ed71929cf94a9a83f3a027  FIAT-0.3.4.tar.gz
+ package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
+ specfile is properly named, is cleanly written
+ Spec file is written in American English.
+ no %doc files present to install.
+ Spec file is legible.
+ dist tag is present.
+ build root is correct.
+ license is open source-compatible.
+ License text is included in package.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ defattr usage is correct.
+ %clean is present.
+ package installed properly.
+ Macro use appears rather consistent.
+ Package contains code, not content.
+ no headers or static libraries.
+ no .pc file present.
+ no -devel subpackage
+ no .la files.
+ no translations are available.
+ Does owns the directories it creates.
+ no scriptlets present.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ Not a GUI App.

Suggestions
1) License tag should be LGPLv2+ as described in Licensing page as
"A GPL or LGPL licensed package that lacks any statement of what version that
it's licensed under in the source code/program output/accompanying docs is
technically licensed under *any* version of the GPL or LGPL, not just the
version in whatever COPYING file they include. Note that this is LGPLv2+, not
LGPL+, because version 2 was the first version of LGPL. "

2) you should ask upstream to include license text file in next upstream
release.

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.