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=514311 David Lutterkort <lutter@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lutter@xxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |lutter@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from David Lutterkort <lutter@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-09-17 22:04:08 EDT --- OK - Package name OK - License info is accurate No overall upstream license info is included. Since you are upstream, please consider adding one. The scripts do have GPLv2+ license notices though. On a related note, it would be much friendlier to change your release procedure so that the tarball contains everything in a toplevel ovirt-node-recipe-%{version} directory. OK - License tag is correct and licenses are approved OK - License files are installed as %doc N/A - upstream does not include explicit license (though it should) OK - Specfile name OK - Specfile is legible OK - No prebuilt binaries included OK - BuildRoot value (one of the recommended values) See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag Uses -buildroot instead of -root, but no biggie. The tag is generally spelled BuildRoot, not buildroot. OK - PreReq not used FIX - Source md5sum matches upstream This is a prerelease package. For that, either make a tarball available upstream, and include the full URL to it as Source0, or put a comment before Source0 explaining how the tarball was made. (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages) 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 FIX - rpmlint is silent (Please run rpmlint yourslef in future reviews and paste its output into the review ticket) W: summary-not-capitalized oVirt Node image recipe that's ok, since oVirt likes to be spelled that way W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.93-0 ['1.0.2-0.fc12', '1.0.2-0'] please update the changelog FIX - Proper debuginfo packages This is a noarch package - no need to turn off debuginfo General question: the kickstart file references ovirt-node-{logos,release,selinux,stateless}, though now there is only an ovirt-node package. That seems to call for major breakage. -- 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