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=501393 Jochen Schmitt <jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jochen Schmitt <jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-05-27 14:51:56 EDT --- Good: + Basename of SPEC files matches with package name + Package name fullfill naming guidelines + Package contains valid license tag + URL tag shows on proper project homepage + Could download sources via spectool -g + Package sources matches with upstream (md5sum: 0357fee5f1ab61e7ead345a2c76cd3b6) + License tag state GPLv2 as a valid OSS license + Consistently usage of rpm macros + Package doesn't contains subpacakges + Package has proper Provides/Obsoles statement for renaming + Proper Buildroot defintion + Buildroot will be cleaned on beginning of %clean and %install + Package contains SMP-enabled build + Local build works fine + Build use $RPM_OPT_FLAGS as compiler flags + No complaints from rpmlint for source rpm + No complaints from rpmlint for binary rpm + No complaints from rpmlint for debuginfo rpm + Debuginfo contains sources + Files has proper file permission + %file stanza doesn't contains dupblicated entries + All package files are owned by this package + Ther are no other package which claims one of the package files + %doc stanza is small. + Chagelog stanza has proper format Bad: - LICENSE file state GPLV2+ as license - Header files state GPLv2 with exception or GPLv2 as license - Package doesn't contains verbatin copy of the license - Scratch build fails on koji (Please refer to: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1380175) -- 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