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=514602 Jochen Schmitt <jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|sgrubb@xxxxxxxxxx |jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Jochen Schmitt <jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-30 13:51:44 EDT --- Good: + Basename of the SPEC file matches with package name + Package has a proper project homepage + Could downloading source via spectool -g * Consistently usage of rpm macros + Package tarball matches with upstream (md5sum: 2f47c6549b6adee06126243ec2162cb9) + Package contains no subpackages + Package has a valid licen tag + The license tag states GPLv2 as a valid OSS license + Copyrigh notes on headers matches with license tag + Package contains a verbatin copy of the license text + Local build works fine + Package support SMP build + Package use %find_lang macro + Rpmlint is silent on binary rpm. + Debunginfo package contains source files + Koji build works fine + Files has proper permisions + All packaged files are owned by the package + No packaged file belong to another package + %Ddoc is small, so we don't need a separate subpackage + Package contains proper %ChangeLog Bad: - Package contains not a BuildRoot tag. - Buildroot will not been clean on the start of %clean and %install - The package description could be more verbose. As a minimum you should wrote: this package provide a GUI which allows the user to configure the linux audit subsystem. - Please create a conflict statement agains the audit package before the splitt off. -- 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