Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474909 Christoph Wickert <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Christoph Wickert <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-22 17:55:57 EDT --- Review for 46209efc4032e5c76ef176de60dc3bd6 gxmms2-0.7.0-1.fc11.src.rpm OK - MUST: rpmlint silent on all packages. OK - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. OK - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license (GPLv2) and meets the Licensing Guidelines. FIX - MUST: The License field in the package spec file does not the actual license: License field is GPLv2#, but I can't find the "or any later version" anywhere in the headers of the source. OK - MUST: The license file from the source package is included in %doc. OK - MUST: The spec file is in American English. OK - MUST: The spec file for the is legible. OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source by MD5 5419a977d75e33f201fa63f5c5d196a6 OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on i386 OK - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. OK - MUST: The package is not designed to be relocatable. OK - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates. OK - MUST: The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. Every %files section includes a %defattr(...) line. OK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}. OK - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines . OK - MUST: The package contains code, or permissible content. OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application. OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK - MUST: The Package contains a GUI application and includes a %{name}.desktop file, and that file is properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. OK - MUST: The Package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK - MUST: The package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} at the beginning of %install. OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. OK - SHOULD: The reviewer has tested that the package builds in mock. OK - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. OK - SHOULD: Both packages function as described. Notes: 1. I wonder if gxmms2 should have "Requires: xmms2." 2. The "BuildRequires: gkrellm-devel" could be moved to the gkrellxmms2 subpackage 3. If you fix the license tag this package is APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review