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=509744 --- Comment #5 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-09 00:54:07 EDT --- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. See below - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. See Below - License (GPLv3+) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. See below - Sources match upstream md5sum: OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install OK - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. See below - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package obey's FHS standard (except for 2 exceptions) OK - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version OK - Should not use file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin Issues: 1. Pick one of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot} and use that consistently. 2. The Source url is ok, but might be better to list the savanna download: http://download.savannah.gnu.org/releases-noredirect/solang/Solang-0.2.tar.gz In fact it seems the link you have is giving a 404 currently and the savannah site doesn't have the 0.2 version. ;( Check with upstream? Ah, your version is a prerelease checkout? See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL You will need to explain in a comment how to do that exact checkout. 3. The License seems to be GPLv3+. No need to ship a copy of COPYING.GPLv2 I wouldn't think. 4. No need to package the "INSTALL" doc. It's generic and you are taking care of the install for the user. 5. Not a blocker, but the %{__rm} and other macros are not very useful IMHO. You're welcome to use them, but typing an extra 5 characters and making the spec less readable doesn't seem worth it to me. 6. You need to own the %{_datadir}/%{name}/pixmaps/ and %{_datadir}/%{name}/ui/ directories. Either remove the /* from them so rpm globs the dir too, or add %dir entries for them. -- 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