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=497863 Jochen Schmitt <jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #3 from Jochen Schmitt <jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-05-05 13:44:05 EDT --- Good: + Package name fits naming guidelines. + Basename of the SPEC files fits with package name. + Could open URL in URL tag + Could download source files with spectool -g + Source file matches with upstream version (md5sum: b47eaa6ae4231a42f4a15564a08eb439) + Consistently usage of rpm macros. + Package contains valid License tag + License tag contains 'Public Domain' as a valid OSS license + License fits with copyright note in source file + Package contains no verbatin license text (IMHO this is not required for Public Domain) + Package contains no subpackages + Local build works fine + Rpmlint is quite for source package + Rpmlint is quite for binary package + Files has proper files permissions + Files stanza contains no duplicates + Local install and uninstall works fine. + Scratch build on koji works fine. + Package contains proper %changelog Bad: - Why do you don't but the generated readme.txt file no into the %doc stanza? - Local test fais. I have try to copy a mbox file form /var/spool/mail into a directroy and then call mb2md -s <file>. I have got the following message: mb2md.pl -s s4504kr Fatal: Source is not an mbox file or a directory! -- 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