[Bug 199310] Review Request: sturmbahnfahrer - Simulated obstacle course for automobiles

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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: sturmbahnfahrer - Simulated obstacle course for automobiles


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199310





------- Additional Comments From panemade@xxxxxxxxx  2006-07-19 02:02 EST -------
== Not an official review as I'm not yet sponsored ==
   Mock build for rawhide i386 is failed. I added some BR's
alsa-lib-devel,libX11-devel,libXmu-devel,libXi-devel. I did it and again did
mock build and its successfull.

* MUST Items:
      - rpmlint shows no errors
      - dist tag is present.
      - The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
      - The spec file name matching the base package Sturmbahnfahrer, in the
format Sturmbahnfahrer.spec.
      - This package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
      - The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
      - The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license GPL.
      - This package includes License file COPYING.
      - This source package includes the text of the license in its own file,and
that file, containing the text of the license for the package is included in %doc.
      - The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. md5sum is correct (25d8907b234c9ebaa91c590c6fcbf9ba)
      - This package successfully compiled and built into binary rpms for i386
architecture.
      - This package did not containd any ExcludeArch.
      - This package owns all directories that it creates. 
      - This package did not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
      - This package  have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
      - This package used macros.
      - Document files are included like JOYSTICKS LICENCE README TODO.
      - Package did NOT contained any .la libtool archives.
      - Desktop file installed correctly and its icon is also visible.

Also,
      * Source URL is present and working.
      * BuildRoot is correct BuildRoot:       
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
      * Package worked fine on i386.

You need to add BRs as mentioned above.

-- 
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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]