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=481004 Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-21 14:12:59 EDT --- Review ======= Good: - rpmlint checks return nothing - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (BSD) OK, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream (338bc398ace91a05af769f6b555cce89ba997fbe) - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for .desktop file Bad: * Package is not using %{optflags} during compilation. * There is no packaged documentation aside from the manpage * The license text is not packaged as %doc * %defattr(-,root,root) is used instead of %defattr(-,root,root,-) * Patch1 is completely pointless. * Missing BuildRequires: elfutils-libelf-devel Please fix these issues and show a new SRPM. -- 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