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=475132 Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841 | Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-13 19:13:25 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 (GPLv2) 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: cbba81a5b47b811dafd897cd7bd72dee usbmon-5.2.tar.gz cbba81a5b47b811dafd897cd7bd72dee usbmon-5.2.tar.gz.orig See below - Package needs ExcludeArch OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install 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 have dist tag OK - Should package latest version Issues: A few general comments, unrelated to the packaging and thus moot for the review, but I thought I would mention them: - You have your upstream url as your people.redhat.com page. Perhaps it would be good to use a fedorahosted.org site for this? That way you get bug tracking/mailing lists/vcs repo, etc. See: https://fedorahosted.org/web/new - You might add a note about the license version to the .c file. No big deal since it's mentioned other places and is clearly your intent, but just to be paranoid. ;) Now, on to issues about the package: 1. I have no idea on the ExcludeArch. Does s390 have usb? In any case it's not a blocker here as Fedora doesn't have s390 as a primary arch. You might ask the s390 list? I don't see any other blockers here, this is a very simple package, and is APPROVED. Go ahead and continue the process from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#Get_a_Fedora_Account If you have any questions don't hesitate to contact me via bugzilla, email, or on irc (nirik on freenode). -- 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