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=530617 --- Comment #7 from Jochen Schmitt <jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-11-29 15:28:57 EDT --- Good: + Basename of the SPEC file matches with package name. + Package fullfill naming guildelines + Consistently usage of rpm macros + URL tag shows on proper project homepage + Package contains most recent version of the software + Could download upstream tarball via spectool -g + Package tar ball matches with upstream (md5sum: 2a394310c209605ba54ecf5eab518bff) + License tag states MIT and LPL as valid oSS licenses + Package conatins verbain copy of the license text + Package contains subpackages + Subpackage has proper Requies to main package + Package has proper definition of BuildRoot + Package use smp_mflags + Buildroot will be cleaned at the beginning fo %clean and %install + Local build works fine + Rpmlint is silent on source rpm Bad: - License tag should be MIT and LPL and Public Domain, because I have found a source files which is declared as public domain oh the head of the source file - Package doesn't create a so file of the library. - Devel package shouldn't contains a static library - libixp package missing -- 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