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=553706 Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |notting@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #2 from Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-08 15:11:41 EDT --- MUST items: - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines - OK - Spec file matches base package name. - OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. - OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. - OK - License - OK (LGPLv3) - License field in spec matches - OK - License file included in package - OK. Also includes GPL just for the heck of it. - Spec in American English - OK - Spec is legible. - OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: - *** This is a git repo, so hard to test. Spec should follow the convention on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL - Package needs ExcludeArch - *** Even if it's a noarch package, it should have ExclusiveArch set so we don't bother including it in ppc (or other) trees. Moreover, Dan's comment stands on how it builds. Might just be simplest to add the ExclusiveArch and remove the BuildArch. - BuildRequires correct - *** Doesn't appear to actually need python-devel. - Spec handles locales/find_lang - N/A - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. - N/A - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. - OK - Package has a correct %clean section. - OK - Package has correct buildroot - OK %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) - Package is code or permissible content. - OK - Doc subpackage needed/used. - N/A - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - N/A - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. - OK (tested x86_64) - Package has no duplicate files in %files. - OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. - OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. - *** Needs to own %{_datadir}/seabios - No rpmlint output. - OK - final provides and requires are sane: *** Does this need to obsolete/provide bochs-bios? SHOULD Items: - Should build in mock. - did not test - Should build on all supported archs - did not test - Should function as described. - did not test - Should have sane scriptlets. - N/A - Should have dist tag - OK - Should package latest version - I suppose git from today is latest enough. -- 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