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=661272 --- Comment #3 from Chris Lumens <clumens@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-12-17 11:38:31 EST --- Mandatory review guidelines: ok - rpmlint output A comment in the .spec file excuses this. ok - License files included in package %docs or not included in upstream source ok - Build succeeds on at least one supported platform ok - Build succeeds on all supported platforms or has ExcludeArch + bugs filed ok - BuildRequires correct Optional review guidelines: no - Man pages included for all executables This is fine for now. Packaging guidelines: ok - Correct BuildRoot tag on < F10/EL6 ok - Correct %clean section on < F13/EL6 ok - Requires correct, justified where necessary ok - All relevant documentation is packaged, tagged appropriately It would be nice to have some real documentation - either as docstrings or external. This is a big, complex project and needs some explaining. However, if having documentation were a requirement for being in Fedora, we'd have far less stuff. ok - Useful -debuginfo package or disabled and justified ok - Config files marked with %config no - %config files marked noreplace or justified Please use %config(noreplace) - see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Configuration_files ok - No %config files under /usr Python Guidelines: ok - Runtime Requires correct -- 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