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=480860 Petr Sklenar <psklenar@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |psklenar@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #4 from Petr Sklenar <psklenar@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-28 10:45:55 EDT --- Hello, This is my informal review. I cannot sponsor you as I'm not an approved packager. Your package and specfile seems OK for me: My review: + rpmlint output is clean. + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. There is timespan.spec. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. GPLv2+ + There is license in separate file in %doc : /usr/share/doc/timespan-2.1/COPYING + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL (md5sum timespan-2.1.tar.gz c9d545eb5f617b29b3a634d7a0aec39a + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + There isn't duplicate files in the %files listing. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}. + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. + Package doesn't own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All file names in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. architectures. + I did a limited test that the package functions as described, like '/usr/bin/timespan -l now' + Summary and description corresponds package's home. -- 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