Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mod_mono https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189150 kevin@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |kevin@xxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2006-09-07 23:06 EST ------- OK - Package name OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. See below - License See below - License field in spec matches See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 3f0408a350f6f55029b75f4332be171f mod_mono-1.1.17.tar.gz 3f0408a350f6f55029b75f4332be171f mod_mono-1.1.17.tar.gz.1 OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. See below - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. See below - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - .la files are removed. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - No rpmlint output. SHOULD Items: See below - Should include License or ask upstream to include it. OK - Should build in mock. Issues: 1. URL and Source0 are not correct. URL should be the link to the website of the package. Suggest something like: http://www.mono-project.com/Mod_mono Source0 should be the full link to the source file. Suggest something like: http://go-mono.com/sources/mod_mono/mod_mono-1.1.17.tar.gz 2. The License looks wrong. The code and the COPYING file are the Apache License, Version 2.0. NOT the GPL. Note that these items are duplicated from comment #6. Can you fix them? Or indicate why not? 3. Might include the INSTALL doc? In many cases this is a generic document from the auto tools, but in this case it has some useful apache configuration information, IMHO. 4. Might change the defattr from: %defattr(-, root, root) to %defattr(-, root, root,-) 5. You seem to be missing a %clean section. Please add one. 6. You should perhaps Require: httpd >= 2.2 ? Otherwise this package is pretty useless without apache? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review