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=478767 Ian Weller <ianweller@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(ianweller@xxxxxxx | |om) | --- Comment #13 from Ian Weller <ianweller@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-18 14:38:12 EDT --- (The correct URL is http://gauret.free.fr/fichiers/rpms/fedora/spring/spring-0.78.2.1-1.fc10.src.rpm ....) == FULL REVIEW == - The timestamp on the source file is not the same as the server. Please download source files with "wget -N" or "curl -R". https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps - Please don't use a trademark in the Summary tag or the %description. For the Summary: "Multiplayer, 3D realtime strategy combat game" would work for me. [ OK ] source files match upstream: 4765d25d44f4bdc2f68af0f76743f30d spring_0.78.2.1_src.tar.lzma 4765d25d44f4bdc2f68af0f76743f30d spring_0.78.2.1_src.tar.lzma.1 [ OK ] package meets naming and versioning guidelines. [ OK ] spec is properly named, cleanly written, and uses macros consistently. [ OK ] dist tag is present. [ OK ] build root is correct. [ OK ] license field matches the actual license. [ OK ] license is open source-compatible. [ OK ] license text included in package. [ OK ] latest version is being packaged. [ OK ] BuildRequires are proper. [ OK ] compiler flags are appropriate. [ OK ] %clean is present. [ OK ] package builds in mock. [ WAIT ] package installs properly. [ OK ] debuginfo package looks complete. [ OK ] rpmlint is silent. rpm-buildroot-usage %build message due to scons. [ OK ] final provides and requires are sane [ N/A ] %check is present and all tests pass: [ OK ] no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. I'm assuming /usr/lib/spring isn't a regular linker search path. please correct me if I'm wrong. [ OK ] owns the directories it creates. [ OK ] doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. [ OK ] no duplicates in %files. [ OK ] file permissions are appropriate. [ OK ] scriptlets match those on ScriptletSnippets page. [ OK ] code, not content. [ OK ] documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. [ OK ] %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. [ OK ] no headers. [ OK ] no pkgconfig files. [ OK ] no libtool .la droppings. [ OK ] desktop files valid and installed properly. Waiting on these for package approval: - Timestamp fix - Summary/%description without trademarks - Other three package reviews -- 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