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: mtd-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190304 jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-05-01 20:18 EST ------- Completed MUST items: - rpmlint output: [jwboyer@vader i386]$ rpmlint -v mtd-utils-1.0.0-1.i386.rpm I: mtd-utils checking [jwboyer@vader i386]$ - named according to the Package Naming guidlines - spec file name matches %{name}.spec - meets Packaging Guidelines - licensed under the GPL - License: field matches - MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. - source SHA1 sum matches upstream - compiles and builds on x86 Two small nits: - The package should probably throw a Requires: zlib and BuildRequires: zlib-devel in the spec file. - The upstream source lacks a copy of the license text. It would be nice if the upstream source could include this at some point, but is not required. I'm assuming David will fixup the zlib issues. After that is done, I consider this approved. -- 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review