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=537066 Jochen Schmitt <jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Jochen Schmitt <jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-11-12 12:28:30 EDT --- Good: + Package fullfill naming guidelines + Consistently rpm macro usage + URL shows on proper homepage + License tag exclaim ASL 2.0 as valid OSS license + Package contains verbatin copy of the license text + Copyright notes in the sources matches with license tag + Could download upstream sources via spectool -g + Package tar ball matches with upstream (md5sum: b1e6ebfb76ec7071b6a3f5f9d7df2e57) + Patch seams to be reliable + Package will build as noarch + Package has proper BuildRoot definition + Local build works fine + Rpmlint is silent for source package + Rpmlint is silent for binary package + Rpmlint is silent for javadoc package + Koji build works fine + Package as javadoc subpackage for Java API documentation + %doc stanza is small + Files stanza has proper file permissions definitions + All java class are put in a singel jar file + Package contains versioned and unversioned jar file + Files stanza has no duplicated entries + all package files are owned by the package + Package has no files which may belongs to other packages + Package has proper change log *** 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