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: jokosher Alias: jokosher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199029 peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(snecklifter@gmail. | |com) ------- Additional Comments From peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-03-24 13:25 EST ------- (In reply to comment #70) > > BAD: The package does not follow the Naming Guidelines: The Release tag should > > be "0.%{X}.%{alphatag}" or equivalent as noted in the "Pre-Release packages" > > section of the naming guidelines (Packaging/NamingGuidelines on the wiki). > > This should now be fixed as I have started bumping the %{X} section with each > new build. > That's still not correct. For pre-release snapshots, the final version from upstream will be Release 1, so everything before it must be Release 0.X, and with a suffix of the snapshot date tag too. Everything else looks fixed, with the exception of your dependencies: pycairo is a dependency of pygtk2, so you should remove the former. GOOD: Builds fine in mock (x86_64 and i386, FC-6 and Devel); and rpmlint is silent on the source and built (noarch) packages. > Okay, let me know if this becomes a problem. Note I am doing an svn export as > opposed to a svn checkout to lose all the usual svn cruft. > I just did the svn export again and it came up with a yet different MD5 hash, so that seems to be entirely a false positive. It's a minor issue, too, but for some parts in your %files section, you use the %name macro, yet in others you hardcode "jokosher." Is there a specific reason for this inconsistency? You just need to address these three issues, then it'll be approved. Thanks. -- 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