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=460253 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-20 14:50:52 EDT --- This one builds, and is rather simple. I guess it might be nice to define QSO somewhere in your %description. I guess it makes sense to those who already know what it means, but it means nothing to me. This package should own /etc/qle * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 2e948b64233ded37b80a3e77009f1006bce40428f857a01792f3dd2385a7edb3 qle-0.0.10.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 (maybe define QSO) * 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. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: config(qle) = 0.0.10-2.fc10 qle = 0.0.10-2.fc10 = /bin/bash /usr/bin/perl config(qle) = 0.0.10-2.fc10 cwdaemon hamlib-perl perl perl(Config::General) perl(DBD::SQLite) perl(DBI) perl(English) perl(File::Basename) perl(IO::Socket) perl(Tk) perl(Tk::After) perl(Tk::Bitmap) perl(Tk::ErrorDialog) perl(Tk::ItemStyle) perl(strict) perl(warnings) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. It seems to work when I run it, although I've no idea how to do anything. X fails to own /erc/qle * 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. * desktop files valid and installed properly. -- 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