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=670457 --- Comment #3 from Jeffrey Ness <jeffrey.ness@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-01-22 13:20:25 EST --- Good: * rpmlint clean * Package follows naming guidelines * Spec file name matches package name * License is WTFPL in source and spec file * WTFPL is an open source license: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses * Spec file is legible American English * License is not included source tarball and thus not in %doc https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text * Source matches upstream: md5sum: 4dec7585a2a2d716a765d553cdc1ddaf toilet-0.2.tar.gz 4dec7585a2a2d716a765d553cdc1ddaf toilet-0.2.tar.gz-upstream * Builds in koji/mock * No locale files that need to be marked with %find_lang * No shared libraries * No bundled libraries * No files listed more than once * All files and directories created by the package owned by the package and no others. (see below) * No large documentation that needs to be in a separate subpackage * Nothing in %doc used at runtime * No GUI application included so no .desktop requirement * All filenames are valid utf-8 * No scriptlets * No file dependencies * Man page marked as %doc and placed properly Needswork: * I would like to see your %file section a bit more specific (as mentioned in initial review) %{_bindir}/toilet rather than %{_bindir}/* I looks like your package is nearly ready for approval, if you can make the change mentioned in 'Needswork' we should be one step closer. -- 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