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=581280 Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-05-13 09:52:05 EDT --- Ah, okay. So that is definitely something we should write up as Packaging Guidelines for erlang (or, if possible, fix so that there is useful debuginfo). === REVIEW === Good: - rpmlint checks return: erlang-oauth.src: W: invalid-url Source0: erlang-oauth-0.gite8aecf0.tar.bz2 erlang-oauth.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency erlang-stdlib erlang-oauth.x86_64: E: no-binary erlang-oauth.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib All are safe to ignore. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (MIT) OK, text in %doc, source is missing license attribution, but upstream has been notified - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream (can't do tarball comparison because it is generated from git, but diff of checkout and source matches) - package compiles on F-13 (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file This is APPROVED. One extremely minor suggestion: In the comments on how to make the source tarball from the git repo, you reference "%{git_commit}", but you don't actually define it in the spec anywhere. It would be nice if you would do that, or at least, remove it from the comments so it doesn't confuse anyone. P.S. I'd love a review on 566560. -- 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