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=519118 Iain Arnell <iarnell@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |iarnell@xxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |iarnell@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Iain Arnell <iarnell@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-08-30 03:37:01 EDT --- Two minor niggles: It doesn't look like "upx" is actually necessary for the build (only for "make release") - please remove the BuildRequires. The name of the installed binary is too generic - please rename it to "nforenum". And a very minor grammatical issue - I would also consider changing the first word of the description to "nforenum". With those tiny changes, APPROVED. + source files match upstream. diff -qr reveals no differences (svn export, checksum not suitable) + 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. GPLv2+ + license is open source-compatible. + license text is included. + latest version is being packaged. - BuildRequires not proper. doesn't look like upx is actually necessary + compiler flags are appropriate. + %clean is present. + package builds in mock https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1643847 + package installs properly. + rpmlint has no complaints: nforenum.src: I: checking nforenum.x86_64: I: checking nforenum-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. + final provides and requires are sane: nforenum = 3.4.7-0.1.r2184.fc12 nforenum(x86-64) = 3.4.7-0.1.r2184.fc12 = libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit) + no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. + owns the directories it creates. + doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. - generically named files "renum" is too generic - please rename it to "nforenum" + code, not content. + documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. + %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. -- 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