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: urlview - URL extractor/launcher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245951 ------- Additional Comments From Jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-06-27 13:32 EST ------- Good: + Package confirm with naming guidelines. + Package contains currecnt version of the application + Rpm macros used consistently + Package contains %{?dist} tag + Package is licensed under the GPL + License filed matches with license from the COPYING file. + Package contains verbatim copy of the license text + Spec name matches with package base name + Package is written in English + Package is legible + Tar ball matches with upstrea (md5sum: 67731f73e69297ffd106b65c8aebb2ab) + Package has correct Buildroot + BuildRequires are not redundant (Package contains only one BuildRequires) + Package contains no subpackages + $RPM_BUILD_ROOT will cleaned as the beginning of %install and in the %clean section + Local build works + %doc stanza is small. + Package contains %defattr and permission are ok. + Filelist contains no duplicates + Package contains no unown directories + Doc files don't affect runtime + ChangeLog look correctly + Package run on local system + Rpmlint is quite on source and binary rpm + Mock build works fine for Devel and F-7 (x86_64) Bad: - Package contains files own by mutt-5.5.14-4 I think the package schould contains a Conflict statement for exclusion of all mutt package before the split off - Installation of package works only with the force flag because its a split off from mutt -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review