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=475035 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-10 15:56:24 EDT --- Yep, builds clean and rpmlint is silent. Why do you have the odd "?modtime=*" bits at the end of the URLs? They don't seem to be needed, and if I use: Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/metauml/metauml_lib_0.2.5.tgz Source1: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/metauml/metauml_manual_0.2.5.pdf then everything downloads and compares properly. I note that the URL: tag leads to an error page. Is there any other web page which could be referenced? We don't really want to direct interested people to a page which doesn't exist. We have no specific naming guidelines for metapost packages, but prefixing with "metapost-" seems reasonable to me. So my only concerns relate to the URLs. I guess if there's no live upstream then it would be better not to include a URL: tag at all; you can always include one later if upstream does come back up. And it would really be good to use regular SourceN: URLs if at all possible. (If for no other reason than to let the automated tests run over them checking for mismatches or download problems.) * source files match upstream. sha256sum: ae43c06977dbd9ae579bdc04cdc809af4cd81a733f3f7282145ca34a4da04052 metauml_lib_0.2.5.tgz 6e3b197c229563ada8370063944f885def5beeea1600b8bf4891554f88343ca8 metauml_manual_0.2.5.pdf * 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. * 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: metapost-metauml = 0.2.5-2.fc11 = texlive * 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. -- 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