Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: brasero - Gnome CD/DVD burning application https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208072 kevin@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2006-10-03 13:25 EST ------- OK - Package name OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 1ef6ae66677ed9136634692d8bc1cc7a brasero-0.4.4.tar.bz2 1ef6ae66677ed9136634692d8bc1cc7a brasero-0.4.4.tar.bz2.1 OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - No rpmlint output. SHOULD Items: OK - Should include License or ask upstream to include it. OK - Should build in mock. Issues: 1. 0.4.91 seems to be out but it looks like thats a unstable testing version (hard to be sure). No other blockers I can see... this package is APPROVED. Please remember to close this package NEXTRELEASE once it's been imported and built. Consider reviewing another waiting package to help spread the reviewing load. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review