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: rott - Rise of the Triad https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239785 faucamp@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From faucamp@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-05-17 03:41 EST ------- On the -registered issue: Good point in comment #13, I agree, and its good to have it in writing for future reference. Proceeding with review: MUST items: * rpmlint is silent on all binary and -debug packages * rpmlint output for src.rpm: W: rott patch-not-applied Patch99: rott-1.0-registered.patch -- This patch is applied during %build for the special -registered package; this is clearly commented in the spec * package is named well * spec file is named well * package meets Packaging Guidelines * package license is GPL, COPYING file included * License field in spec file matches actual license * license file is included in %doc * spec file is written in American English and legible * package source md5sum matches upstream source: c1c6cbecf00f2229cf2e0053334dcfc1 rott-1.0.tar.gz * package builds successfully on i386 and x86_64 (PPC not tested) * BuildRequires are good * Requires are good * package handles locales properly (no locales) * package has no need for %post and %postun sections * package is not relocatable * package owns directories it creates * no duplicate entries in %files * file permissions are good * proper %clean section * spec file macros are used consistently * package contains only GPL'ed code, not content * no -doc, -devel subpackages necessary X- some docs are missing (see comment #5) * contents in %doc not required for runtime functionality of application * .desktop files present and properly handled SHOULD items: * package builds in mock (fc6/i386) * package functions properly on i386 and x86_64 Worth special mention: * the packager has taken every precaution and put a lot of effort into handling the (non-shipped) content required for both binary packages in order to improve end-user experience Hans, please just add the missing documentation files before importing the package. Other than that, everything looks fine. ------------------------- This package is APPROVED. ------------------------- -- 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