[Bug 615192] Review Request: cjkuni-fonts-ghostscript -Chinese Unicode TrueType font ghostscript files

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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=615192

Parag AN(पराग) <panemade@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-07-27 00:14:46 EDT ---
Review:
+ package builds in mock (rawhide i686).
koji Build =>http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2350726
+ rpmlint output for SRPM and for RPM.
cjkuni-fonts-ghostscript.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
cjkuni-fonts-ghostscript.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
cjkuni-fonts-ghostscript.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
cjkuni-fonts-ghostscript.src: W: no-%clean-section
=> These are not needed to fixed.
+ source files match upstream url (sha1sum)
08521808c1a1ec4cd12f940a2ae9f53fc0b4c685  cjkuni-fonts-gscid-0.3.tgz
08521808c1a1ec4cd12f940a2ae9f53fc0b4c685  cjkuni-fonts-gscid-0.3.tgz.srpm
+ package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
+ specfile is properly named, is cleanly written
+ Spec file is written in American English.
+ Spec file is legible.
+ dist tag is present.
+ license is open source-compatible.
+ License text is included in package.
+ %doc is present.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ %clean is present which is not needed now.
+ package installed properly.
+ Macro use appears rather consistent.
+ Package contains code, not content.
+ no headers or static libraries.
+ no .pc file present.
+ no -devel subpackage
+ no .la files.
+ no translations are available
+ Does owns the directories it creates.
+ no scriptlets present.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ Not a GUI application

Suggestions:
1) looks like license headers in files have text mentioning license is given in
COPYING file whereas new upstream tarball provides LICENSE file.

Can it be possible to upstream to change reference of COPYING word to LICENSE
word in all 6 files?

APPROVED.

-- 
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



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]