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=781458 --- Comment #1 from Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx> 2012-01-18 06:27:08 EST --- formal review is here, see the notes explaining OK* and BAD statuses below: BAD source files match upstream: BAD package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible (LGPLv2+). License text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. BAD BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. BAD package builds in mock (Rawhide/i386). OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. OK shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths with correct scriptlets OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK correct scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK headers in devel subpackage OK pkgconfig files in devel subpackage OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. - sources are a git snapshot without an instruction how to obtain it (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control) - python subpackage should be named python-libteam (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28python_modules.29) - swig is missing in BRs - shouldn't a default teamd config file be packaged under /etc, maybe as %ghost-ed file? -- 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