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=530090 --- Comment #54 from Jochen Schmitt <jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-12-15 12:19:40 EDT --- Good: + SPEC basename matches with package name + Package contains recent release of the application + Consistantly usage of rpm macros + URL tag shows on proper project homepage + Could download upstream tar ball via spectool -g + Package tarball matches with upstream (m5dsum: ec409b4628c2c9a4f9789cb7fb570271) + License tag states GPLv2+ as a valid OSS license + Package contains verbatin copy of the license text + Package contains el subpackage for emacs lisp sources + Subpackage contains proper Required tag agains main package + Local build works fine + Package has proper Buildroot definition + Buildroot will be clean at start of %clean and %install + Rpmlint is silent on source package + Rpmlint is silent on binary package + Mock build works fine + Local install/uninstall works fine + Application seems to work properly + Files has proper permission + All files are owned by the package + There are new files or dirs belong to other packages + %doc stanza is small, so we need no separate doc subpackage + Package has proper Changelog Bad: - I could fount GPLv3 licensed source files in the package. Pliease change license tag to 'GPLv2+ and GPLv3' -- 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