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: multitail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182122 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-02-22 14:43 EST ------- OK, the bug is repoened and back in shape. Now, onto the review: Release: should start at 1 and should include disttag. Don't set Vendor: in extras packages. Buildroot should include user ID. Requires: ncurses is not necessary; rpm will pick up the dependency. Suggest using %setup -q for a quieter build. Suggest fixing up line endings in HTML files to quiet rpmlint. Pass %{optflags} to make. Add the release to the most recent changelog entry. I will attach a patch to fix these and to put the spec more into line with the Extras template. I don't know what it hurts, but as in a previous comment, rpmlint complains about the permissions on the source tarball. I suggest changing the permisions on the tarball in the srpm to 0644. Please consider including the actual text of the license in your tarball. (The package submitter is supposed to bug upstream to do this, but you're the upstream so I guess I'm supposed to bug you.) Good stuff: After building with the patched spec, rpmlint is silent and the package builds in mock (development, i386 and x86_64). Source file matches upstream. License is appropriate and matches source. Fix up the above issues and I'll approve the package, or let me know what you disagree with and we'll figure something out. -- 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. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
