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=438406 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-06 10:11:44 EDT --- Honestly, anyone who waits around for eight months and still wants to contribute deserves sponsorship in my book. Especially now that it doesn't automatically grant access to the entire distro. This package is simple, builds fine in rawhide, and elicits no complaints from rpmlint. I can't really do any testing as I don't have the necessary equipment, though. All I can do is verify that the binary runs, which it does. I will sponsor you. It seems you've already applied for access, so I'll click the button and you can make your CVS request after everything syncs. * source files match upstream: da72377b4e5c1672457aca7a117427cb91bbf4be3035d00bb9ae34c376849bbe ufiformat-0.9.4.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 included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: ufiformat = 0.9.4-3.fc10 ufiformat(x86-64) = 0.9.4-3.fc10 = libext2fs.so.2()(64bit) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. The binary runs, but that's all I'm able to test. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. 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