Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: aria2 - High speed download utility with resuming and segmented downloading. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221039 karlikt@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |karlikt@xxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From karlikt@xxxxxxxxx 2006-12-31 07:33 EST ------- I am not sponsored, it is prereview. -Rpmlint: (S)RPM: "W: aria2 summary-ended-with-dot High speed download utility with resuming and segmented downloading." Summary is: "Summary: High speed download utility with resuming and segmented downloading." It should be: "Summary: High speed download utility with resuming and segmented downloading" -The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. -The spec file name is in the format %{name}.spec -I think that the package meets the Packaging Guidelines. -License GPL - ok -In spec the actual license is written -The text of the license is included in %doc -The spec file is written in American English. -The spec file for the package is legible. -md5sum source in srpm and from url is the same -SRPM succesfully compiles with mock (Fc6, arch i386) -All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. There are not any packages from ExceptionList -The spec file handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. There are not used %{_datadir}/locale/* -RPM package have not shared library files -The package is not designed to be relocatable. -The package own all directories that it creates. -There are not any duplicate files in %files listing. -Permissions on files are set properly. -Package have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). -The package consistently uses macros -The package contains code, or permissable content. -There are not large documentation files -Files in %doc do not affect the runtime of the application. -There are not header files or static libraries. -There are not pkgconfig(.pc) files. -There are not any library files with a suffix -There are not a devel package -There are not any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. -It is not a GUI application -Packages does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review