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: crm114 - CRM114 Bayesian Spam Detector https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187610 jima@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From jima@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-08-17 17:02 EST ------- Going down my checklist again... 1. One rpmlint warning (W: crm114-emacs no-documentation), which was deemed acceptable. 2. Package appears to meet Package Naming Guidelines. 3. Spec is named crm114.spec, check. 4. Package meets Packaging Guidelines, AFAICT. 5. Licensed under GPL, check. 6. License: GPL, check. 7. %doc contains GPL-License.txt, which I missed on my first pass. 8. Spec appears to be American English. 9. Spec seems legible. 10. md5sum on tarball matches upstream now (not sure what was up with that). 11. Compiles and builds on i386/ppc (my two supported build platforms). 12. x86_64 excluded, as per dependency on tre-devel. You noted bug #202893, the blocker. Good. 13. Builds under Plague, so I imagine all of its dependencies are listed. 14. n/a, I think. 15. n/a (no shared libs) 16. n/a 17. You changed crm114-emacs' Req to emacs-el, resolving this issue. 18. No duplicate %files entries. 19. Defattr seems valid. 20. Has valid %clean section. 21. Macro use appears consistent. 22. Package contains code, not content. 23. Documentation makes up over 50% of the package's size, but that's still not that much. 24. I don't see anything in %doc affecting runtime. 25. No header files or static libraries. 26. No .pc files. 27. No library files, much less ones with suffixes. 28. n/a (no -devel subpackage) 29. No .la files. 30. No GUI applications. 31. Doesn't own any directories owned by other packages (to the best of my knowledge). 32. n/a, I overlooked GPL-License.txt 33. I'm not sure there are any description/summary translations available. 34. Package builds as i386 and ppc in Plague (and thus Mock). 35. Package won't build on x86_64 due to dependency's ExcludeArch: x86_64; other architectures, yes. 36. I can't verify full functionality, but the binary doesn't segfault on i386/ppc. 37. No scriptlets. 38. The -emacs subpackage doesn't depend on the main package, ergo no listed Req. Unless I screwed something up, it looks like crm114 is APPROVED. Go forth and import. :-) -- 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