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=511148 David Lutterkort <lutter@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #3 from David Lutterkort <lutter@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-15 19:23:02 EDT --- OK - Package name OK - License info is accurate OK - License tag is correct and licenses are approved OK - License files are installed as %doc OK - Specfile name OK - Specfile is legible OK - No prebuilt binaries included FIX- BuildRoot value (one of the recommended values) See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag OK - PreReq not used FIX- Source md5sum matches upstream No upstream release - consider setting up a simple webpage and a tarball (e.g., on fedorahosted); at the very minimum, tag the release in git. Once you have that URL should point to that released tarball, not git. If you don't do that, you need to explain in a comment before the URL how exactly you created the tarball (include the git commit/tag from which it was created) OK - No hardcoded pathnames OK - Package owns all the files it installs OK - 'Requires' create needed unowned directories OK - Package builds successfully on i386 and x86_64 (mock) OK - BuildRequires sufficient OK - File permissions set properly OK - Macro usage is consistent OK - rpmlint is silent OK - Proper debuginfo packages Please fix the two nits above -- 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