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=504641 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-03 16:43:47 EDT --- This is somewhat trivial; nobody's looked at it in a while so I'll tale a look. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 10e0a8d03f504f93ee4b9178c86f1882ac718e76d427602b1f9e10653cde0dde sendxmpp-0.0.8.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: sendxmpp = 0.0.8-2.fc12 = /usr/bin/perl perl(Getopt::Long) perl(Net::XMPP) perl(strict) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I don't really have a way to test this since I don't use jabber. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. APPROVED The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package reviews recently, please consider doing one. -- 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