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=553683 --- Comment #2 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-10 15:01:58 EST --- OK - 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 (GPLv3+) 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: aa1f75133ca1f03d58c891843596eb36 luckybackup-0.3.3.tar.gz aa1f75133ca1f03d58c891843596eb36 luckybackup-0.3.3.tar.gz.orig OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install OK - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - 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. OK - Package obey's FHS standard (except for 2 exceptions) See below - No rpmlint output. See below - final provides and requires are sane. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag See below - Should package latest version OK - Should not use file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin Issues: 1. Two of the desktop files here (the ones with -su in them) call: 'su-to-root'. Where is that provided? Should we just not ship those? Or change them to run a different way in Fedora? 2. 0.3.5 is out now. Can you update? 3. Does smp_mflags not work here? Might note that or add it to the make. 4. rpmlint says: luckybackup.i586: W: spelling-error-in-description en_US rsync luckybackup.i586: W: spelling-error-in-description en_US customizable luckybackup.src: W: spelling-error-in-description en_US rsync luckybackup.src: W: spelling-error-in-description en_US customizable Can be ignored. 5. Do you really need: Requires: qt-x11, qt It looks to me like the QT requirement is pulled in fine from the binary. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review