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=467643 Bryan Kearney <bkearney@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bkearney@xxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |bkearney@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Bryan Kearney <bkearney@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-18 08:57:44 EDT --- See items below: OK - Package name XX - License info is accurate License is GPLv3 OK - License tag is correct and licenses are approved OK - License files are installed as %doc OK - Specfile name OK - Specfile is legible OK - No prebuilt binaries included OK - BuildRoot value (one of the recommended values) OK - PreReq not used ?? - Source md5sum matches upstream - Barring a "release" from upstream, can you export the source code usig the fixed snapshot url (http://dev.laptop.org/git?p=activities/speak;a=snapshot;h=f76cea50b0fdee97e92ce94ac379155d6f8d52ac) OK - No hardcoded pathnames OK - Package owns all the files it installs OK - 'Requires' create needed unowned directories OK - BuildRequires sufficient OK - File permissions set properly OK - Macro usage is consistent ?? - rpmlint is silent - rpmlint on the srpm shows this (the last 3 are worriesome) sugar-maze.src: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities sugar-maze.src: W: strange-permission sugar-maze-checkout.sh 0755 sugar-maze.src: W: strange-permission Maze-6.tar.bz2 0755 sugar-maze.src: W: strange-permission sugar-maze.spec 0755 -- 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