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=587315 Takanori MATSUURA <t.matsuu@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx, | |t.matsuu@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Takanori MATSUURA <t.matsuu@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-04-30 06:45:40 EDT --- This is informal review. formal review will follow. Critical issue: This program requires -dec-terminal-bold-*-*-*-14-*-*-*-*-*-iso8859-* in the file xwindisp.c. But proper fonts are required in the spec file. Please add the proper font package to Requires or change the required font if the proper font doesn't exit in Fedora packages. Need to be fixed: pmars.6 duplicates. Please remove %doc one. Lists confirmed: + rpmlint returns no error with spec file. + rpmlint returns three spelling-error warnings with SRPM file. But the words pointed by rpmlint are from original README file and seem to be no problem. + Spec file name meets Packaging Guidelines. + License: GPLv2+ meets Licensing Guidelines and the binary package includes license text file. + Spec file is legible. + Source file match with upstream one with md5sum and sha1sum. + Source file is available from the URL at Source0. + Success to build binary package on Fedora 12 x86_64. + Success to build binary package with mock which follows all build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires Other items shown the URL below seems to be good. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Things_To_Check_On_Review -- 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