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=534021 Jochen Schmitt <jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Jochen Schmitt <jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-11-11 16:55:59 EDT --- Good: + Name fullfill naming guidelines + URL tags shows on proper project homepage + Consistently usage of rpm macros + Package contains most recent release of the software + License tag exclaim ASL 2.0 as valid OSS license + Package contains verbatin copy of the license text + Copyright notes on source files headers maches with license tag + Package contains several subpackages + Requires on the subpackages are ok + Could download upstream source via spectool -g + Package tar ball matches with upstram (md5sum: 49130a0c8beb74d77653e5) + Package will be built for nonarch + Package has proper Builtroot defintion + Local build works fine + Buildroot will cleaned at the beginning of %clean and %install + Rpmlint is quite on source package + Rpmlint is quite on binary package + Rpmlint is quite on javadoc package + Local install/uninstall works fine + Javadoc documentation is stroed in a separate subpackage + Files has proper file permissions + All files belong to the package + No duplicated entries in the %files stanza + No files of the package belong to another package + file system sructure matches with java guidelines + Main package has a small %doc stanza + Package has proper %changelog ** APPROVED ** -- 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