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=507915 Jochen Schmitt <jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Jochen Schmitt <jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-06-25 13:41:08 EDT --- Good: + Basename of SPEC file matches with package name + Package name fullfill naming guidelines + Package contains a valid license tag + Package contains CA-BY-SA as a valice free license for content + Package contains a verbartin copy of the license text + URL tag shows on proper project homepage + Source tarball could be downloaded via spectool -g + Package tar ball matches with upstream (md5sum: 5cfce7586b3eed87d57c715d5ba86e17) + Consistent usage of rpm macros + Package doesn't contains subpackages + Package contains proper buildroot definition + Buildroot will be cleaned at the beginning of %clean and %install + Package is built as an noarch package + Package contains empty %build stanza + Local build works fine + Rpmlint is silent for source rpm + Rpmlint is silent for binary rpm + Local install and uninstall works fine + Sratch build on koji works fine + Files have proper file permission + %files stanza contains no duplicate entries + All Files are own by this package + No files are belong to an onther package + Package contains only documentation + Package has proper %changelog stanza Your package is APPROVED -- 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