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=459871 --- Comment #1 from Rakesh Pandit <rakesh.pandit@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-08-23 14:29:48 EDT --- This is an unofficial quick review(as I am not a sponsor) to help this package: 1. You should add %check make test to use test cases provided. 2. Confirm from upstream about license. From project page it looks to be BSD. But it is always good to verify. 3. Optional Suggestion: You may like to remove macros from URL. +rpmlint clean +Build on mock -- successfully +summary -- okay +description -- okay +build root -- okay I give priority to this: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) +md5sum source from package: 5e51411512f693897f9cfd59c45071f7 from project resource: 5e51411512f693897f9cfd59c45071f7 - license tag correct, few source files (i confirm 1+)src files have license txt included but most of them don't have. So, you may like to confirm it from upstream. +package naming +spec file & base package name match +macros used consistently, sane spec file +compiler flags are appropriate -you may like to request including a license file to upstream, though this is optional here -- moreover only few src files have license block. +You may also like to contact upstream about you being packaging for fedora and they may -- once passed update there project page. Right now they have point to different RPMs (third party may be) -- 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