Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454199 Colin Walters <walters@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |walters@xxxxxxxxxx Customer Facing| |--- --- Comment #1 from Colin Walters <walters@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-08-06 10:55:15 EDT --- [+] source files match upstream [+] package meets naming and versioning guidelines - Can you annotate the patch to say whether it is going to be upstreamed? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/PatchUpstreamStatus [+] specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently [+] dist tag is present. [+] build root is correct. (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) is the recommended value, but not the only one) [+] license field matches the actual license. [+] license is open source-compatible. [+] license text included in package. [+] latest version is being packaged (as far as I can tell) [+] BuildRequires are proper [+] %clean is present. [+] package builds in koji [+] package installs properly [+] rpmlint is silent. [+] owns the directories it creates. [+] doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. [+] no duplicates in %files. [+] file permissions are appropriate. [+] code, not content. [+] -javadoc package exists and works [+] %doc exists Looks good to me. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review