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=460786 Ian Weller <ianweller@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Ian Weller <ianweller@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-09-27 20:17:21 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > Per IRC, tar/bzip produce different md5sums for each creation (on my system at > least), the files do have the same md5sum Noted. Call it good. > > x specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. > > - s/$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{buildroot} > > - Might be a good idea to change the svnrev to without an r and use it in the > > comment that tells us how you created the tarball. > It's created just like any other, as for $ vs %{} is really just cosmetic, > something I can fix upon import. Noted. I was blocking on other issues. > > x dist tag is present. > > - Add %{?dist} to the end of the Release > Not a must - > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag#Do_I_Have_To_Use_the_Dist_Tag.3F I don't understand the reasoning behind this, but sure. It's guidelines! ;) > > x license text included in package. > > - Fetch a copy of the GPLv2 in text form and shove it in %doc. > This is NOT a must/appropriate solution - > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text Yeah, I forgot. Call it good. == 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review