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: lostirc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200662 panemade@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |panemade@xxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From panemade@xxxxxxxxx 2006-08-02 00:29 EST ------- == Not an official review as I'm not yet sponsored == Mock build for rawhide i386 is successfull with some warnings for source code * MUST Items: - dist tag is present. - The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. - The spec file name matching the base package lostirc, in the format lostirc.spec. - This package meets the Packaging Guidelines. - The spec file for the package is legible. - The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license GPL. X This package dont have any License file. - The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. md5sum is correct (501cd56bc0740d599540fb415718b939 lostirc-0.4.6.tar.gz) - 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. - Package did NOT contained any .la libtool archives. X Desktop files installed twice. You can solve this problem by passing option --delete-original to desktop-install-file Also, * Source URL is present and working. * BuildRoot is correct BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * I did not test package functionality. -- 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