[Bug 313201] Review Request: aasaver - A screensaver for KDE which presents an ASCII aquarium

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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: aasaver  - A screensaver for KDE which presents an ASCII aquarium


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=313201


fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  2007-10-02 06:44 EST -------
OK -  Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK -  Package named correctly
NA -  Patches named correctly
      No Patches
OK -  Spec file named correctly to match base
OK -  License is valid
OK -  Licence field matches package
OK *1 Licence file installed if supplied
OK -  Spec file in American English
OK -  Source matches upstream (md5)
      dfc6780c196883f25ec01b4663dfaca3
NA -  Locales use %find_lang
      No Locales
OK -  %clean is present and correct
OK -  Package has correct buildroot.
OK -  Specfile Legible
OK -  Builds in Mock
      F7-i386
NA -  %post/%postun calls ldconfig for sh libs
      No sh libs
NA -  Owns directories it creates
      Creates no directories
OK -  No duplicate files
OK -  Has %defattr and has correct permissions
OK -  Macros used consistantly
NA -  %doc does not affect runtime
      No Docs
NA -  Headers/static libs in -devel
NA -  .pc files in -devel
NA -  .so files in -devel
NA -  -devel requires base
      No -devel
OK -  Contains no .la libtool archive files
OK -  Does not own others files
OK -  .desktop files installed correctly
OK -  BuildRequires correct.
OK -  Package is code or permissible content.
OK -  Package has rm -rf %{buildroot} at top of %install.
OK -  Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
      F&-i386
OK *2 rpmlint output.
NA -  documentation in -doc package
      No documentation
OK -  final provides and requires are sane.
OK -  should have dist tag
OK -  should package latest version

*1 No License file included by upstream, consider contacting upstream about this.

*2 Warnings as expected are explained in review.

APPROVED


-- 
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, or are watching someone who is.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]