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=466223 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-09 15:51:57 EDT --- I don't really object to it, but I think the first paragraph of %description is content-free in the context of a package description. /usr/bin/one-liner probably should not be shipped; it seems completely pointless, has a generic name, and is already shipped as documentation. My checklist: * source files match upstream: 8cadfb192f92b12d18c0123472924dfe779fefb027051adbff8c7fdcae246778 Sysadm-Install-0.27.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: perl(Sysadm::Install) = 0.27 perl-Sysadm-Install = 0.27-1.fc10 = /usr/bin/perl perl >= 0:5.006 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0) perl(Archive::Tar) perl(Cwd) perl(Expect) perl(File::Basename) perl(File::Copy) perl(File::Path) perl(File::Spec::Functions) perl(File::Temp) perl(LWP::Simple) perl(Log::Log4perl) perl(Log::Log4perl::Util) perl(Sysadm::Install) perl(Term::ReadKey) perl(strict) perl(warnings) * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=12, Tests=43, 1 wallclock secs * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package reviews recently, please consider doing one. -- 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