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=819008 --- Comment #1 from Chris Tyler <chris@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2012-05-04 16:15:54 EDT --- Here's an informal first review... N MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1] *** Please post rpmlint output. Y MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . Y MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] . N MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . *** The httpd subpackage does nothing. Y MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. Y MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [3] NA MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.[4] Y MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5] Y MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6] N MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. *** The Source0: field should point to a reliable upstream URL (such as https://github.com/waterbearlang/waterbear/tarball/d26edaa which corresponds to the git commit d26edaa). *** Additions to the source should be in other files, e.g., Source1: waterbear.desktop ...and at that point in the checklist I stopped. Please address these issues and I'll re-review. -- 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