Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: logserial https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214669 kevin@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |kevin@xxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2006-11-11 23:29 EST ------- OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 833fff07602e4a21f447aa194d14ecd8 logserial-0.4.2.tar.gz 833fff07602e4a21f447aa194d14ecd8 logserial-0.4.2.tar.gz.1 OK - BuildRequires correct 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 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 - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. x86_64/i386 - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version Issues: 1. Given how long since the last upstream release of this package it seems unlikely, but any chance of them including a COPYING file? 2. Instead of the flags you set in the logserial-makefile.patch perhaps you could set $RPM_OPT_FLAGS instead? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review