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=453851 --- Comment #8 from Thomas Sailer <t.sailer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-06 07:33:35 EDT --- Legend: * OK ! Needs attention ! rpmlint output - please fix the mixed-spaces-tabs issue. Also consider adding the license file to all packages as doc. I don't quite understand what the %post script for progs does, so please explain. * Package is named according to Fedora packaging guidelines * Spec file is named as the package ! Package follows the Fedora packaging guidelines why are the file lists packaged? (such as /usr/share/globus/packages/globus_common/gcc32pthr_rtl.filelist) * The stated license (ASL 2.0) is a Fedora approved license * The stated license is the same as the one for the corresponding Fedora package * The package contains the license file (GLOBUS_LICENSE) * The specfile is written in legible English ! Sources matches upstream, but... If you insist on chopping the source tarball, please do it according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL, section "When upstream uses prohibited code". This section IMO matches best what you want to achieve * Package scratch builds * BuildRequires look sane * Owns the directories it creates * No duplicate files * %files has %defattr * %clean clears %buildroot * Specfile uses macros consistently * Package does not own other's directories * %install clears %buildroot * Installed filenames are valid UTF8 -- 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