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: sos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193712 ------- Additional Comments From panemade@xxxxxxxxx 2006-06-19 05:54 EST ------- Review for this package:- Mock Build Results for i386 - Successfully built for i386 MUST Items: - MUST: rpmlint shows no error - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. - MUST: The spec file name matching the base package sos, in the format sos.spec - MUST: This package meets the Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license GPL. - MUST: The License field in the package sos.spec file NOT included in tarball. - MUST: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. md5sum is correct. - MUST: This package owns all directories that it creates. - MUST: This package did not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. - MUST: This package have a %clean section, which contains %{__rm} rm -rf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}. - MUST: This package used macros. - MUST: Document files are included like README. Also, * This package also followed optimized .pyo files installation successfully. * You have followed Python Packaging Guidelines for installing module in pythin_sitelib also. What you need to do is INCLUDE -LICENSE file -Source tarball URL * UPDATE tarball and SPEC file and reupload your package. -- 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