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=480646 Jochen Schmitt <joc...@herr-schmitt.de> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |joc...@herr-schmitt.de AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org |joc...@herr-schmitt.de Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Jochen Schmitt <joc...@herr-schmitt.de> 2009-01-19 14:12:01 EDT --- God: + Basename of SPEC file matches with package name + Package name fits with maming guidelines + Consistently usage of rpm macros + Package contains no subpackages + Source tar ball could downloaed via spectool + Tar ball in package matches with upstream (md5sum: 29b3a00caad5f45c905ec621bec26687) + Package contains valid License tag + License tag has MIT as an valid OSS license + Package contains verbatin copy of the license text + Buildroot will be clean on the beginning of %install and %clean + Package has a %clean stanza + Local buidl works fine. + Local install works fine + Simple call to urlwatch works without crash + Local uninstall works fine + Build on koji works fine + Package will be build as noarch + Rpmlint has no complaints for source rpm + Rpmlint has no complaints for binary rpm + Files has proper file permissions + All packaged files are owned by the package + No packaged files are claimed by other packages + %doc stanza has small amount of files, so we need no separate doc subpackage *** 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
