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: uread - Utilities for unformatted fortran files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197488 Jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From Jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-06-26 14:35 EST ------- Good: + Package meets the naming guideline + Package versioning schema idicates, that a unversion source was used + Package source was renamed to contains a timestamp, becaused it was unversioned + License of the package is GPL + Package contains a mail from upstream with explicit GPL permission + License field metches with mail. + Spec is written in english. + RPM macros are used consistently + Tar ball matches with upsream (md5sum: 656a18c6e731f5ff405d69279c897b1f) + Package has correct buildroot + Package has no BuildRequires + Package has no Requires + Package has no subpackages + Package use optflags + Package use %{_smp_mflags} + Local build works + Package contains proper %defattr + Package has a %clean section and buildroot will clean at the start of %install + Package filelist has no duplicates + Package contains no files own by an other package + Application does not crash on startup + Changelog section look ok. + Rpmlint is quite on source and binary rpm. + Debuginfo package contains source files * Mock build works fine for Devel and F-7 (x86_64) Bad: - Package doesn't contains a file with the verbatim license text *** 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