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=639874 --- Comment #5 from Jeffrey Ness <jeffrey.ness@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-01-25 15:55:08 EST --- Here is a bit more detailed review in order to help get the package approved, as mentioned above this is unofficial. Good: *rpmlint clean * Package follows naming guidelines * Spec file name matches package name * License is MIT in source and spec file * MIT is an open source license * Spec file is legible American English * Source matches upstream: MD5sum b0bfa3bca9d30838c5dec4a083fbd247 * Builds in mock * All build deps satisfied but see below; there's some extra ones. * No locale files that need to be marked with %find_lang * No shared libraries * No bundled libraries * Package is not relocatable * No files listed more than once * All files and directories created by the package owned by the package and no others. * Package contains code, not content. * 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 * No programs so no need for man pages Needswork: *You should use %global rather than %global http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/global_preferred_over_define#current_usage_of_.25define_beneath_Packaging Cosmetic: * Speak with upstream about adding LICENSE to source: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text -- 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