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=501130 Jochen Schmitt <jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Jochen Schmitt <jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-05-17 16:07:26 EDT --- Good: + Basename of the SPEC file matches with package name. + Name of the package fullfill naming guildines. + Package has proper RPM-group + URL tag show on proper project homepage + Package contains most recent release of the software + Could download upstream tar ball via spectool -g + Package tar ball matches with upstream (md5sum: c11b38dfa60d8d07b55746a957b48b19 ) * Package contains valid License tag + License tag state GPLv2 as an valid OSS license + Header of the source file has GPLv2 license note + Package has verbatin copy of the license text + Package has proper defintion of the Buildroot + Buildroot will be cleaned at the beginning of %clean and %install + %doc stanza is small, so we need no extra doc subpackage + Package contains proper Changelog + Local build works fine + Rpmlint is quiete on source rpm + Koji build works fine. Bad: - Initscripts should be install on %{_initrddir} (Unproper usage of rpm macros) - don't put a file on %{_localstatedir}/run. you should only create a directory on it - Who should owned %{_sysconfdir}/ha.d ? - Rpmlint complaints on binary rpm: $ rpmlint drbdlinks-1.16-1.fc10.noarch.rpm drbdlinks.noarch: W: missing-lsb-keyword Default-Stop in /etc/rc.d/init.d/drbdlinksclean drbdlinks.noarch: E: subsys-not-used /etc/rc.d/init.d/drbdlinksclean drbdlinks.noarch: W: incoherent-init-script-name drbdlinksclean 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. -- 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