[Bug 469280] Review Request: fedora-business-cards - A tool for rendering Fedora contributor business cards

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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=469280


Jon Stanley <jonstanley@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |jonstanley@xxxxxxxxx
         AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    |jonstanley@xxxxxxxxx
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+




--- Comment #1 from Jon Stanley <jonstanley@xxxxxxxxx>  2008-10-30 22:37:41 EDT ---
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK- Sources match upstream md5sum:
ee675049982acdc520530020d2b75f0d  fedora-business-cards-0.2.1.tar.gz
ee675049982acdc520530020d2b75f0d 
build/SOURCES/fedora-business-cards-0.2.1.tar.gz

N/A - Package needs ExcludeArch
OK - BuildRequires correct
N/A - Spec handles locales/find_lang
OK - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
N/A - Doc subpackage needed/used.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.

N/A - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
N/A - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
N/A - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
N/A - .so files in -devel subpackage.
N/A - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
N/A - .la files are removed.

N/A - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file

OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - No rpmlint output.
OK - final provides and requires are sane:

SHOULD Items:

OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should function as described.
OK - Should have sane scriptlets.
N/A - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version
N/A - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge review

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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]