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=617400 --- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-07-27 23:59:12 EDT --- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. See below - Meets Packaging Guidelines. See below - License 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: 52a127b0616657d05edc0cb21e91d172 pfHandle-1.tar.gz 52a127b0616657d05edc0cb21e91d172 pfHandle-1.tar.gz.orig OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. See below - 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 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) OK - No rpmlint output. - final provides and requires are sane. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version OK - Should not use file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin Issues: 1. The only indicator of what the package license is is the launchpad site. ;) Might be good to include a COPYING file and explicitly state in the README that it's GPL v2 only. 2. You should nuke the [ "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" != "/" ] && from the clean section. 3. rpmlint says: 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- 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