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: xqf - A server browser for many popular games https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451280 mlichvar@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From mlichvar@xxxxxxxxxx 2008-07-05 14:02 EST ------- Approved. - rpmlint is silent - the package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines - the spec file name matches the base package %{name} - the package meets the Packaging Guidelines - the package is licensed with a Fedora approved license (GPLv2+) - the License field in the package spec file matches the actual license - the package includes the text of the license in %doc - the spec file is written in American English - the spec file for the package is legible - the sources used to build the package matches the upstream source (a88cecba6abb6349107ab135f1009946) - the package successfully builds in x86_64 rawhide - all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires - the spec file handles locales properly - the package owns all directories that it creates - the package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing - permissions on files are set properly - the package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT - the package consistently uses macros - the package contains code, or permissible content - files included as %doc don't affect the runtime of the application - desktop file is installed with desktop-file-install - the package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages - at the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT - all filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8 - the package builds in mock - the package functions as described - scriptlets are sane Few minor points, but not blockers: - it's not necessary to buildrequire glibc-devel, it's already required by gcc - it's probably better to call desktop-file-install after the upstream desktop file is removed, to avoid removing the installed file in case they both have the same name - maybe it would be better to patch the upstream desktop file instead of creating new one from scratch to keep the translated comments? -- 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