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=483115 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> 2009-01-29 14:46:05 EDT --- Good: + Basename of the SPEC files matches with package name + Package names matches with nameing guidelines for font packages + Package zip files matches with upstream (md5sum: 25106eaf88416df3006925b8383b7f69) + Package contains valid License tag + License tag specified OFL as a valid font license for Fedora + Package contains verbatin copy of the license text + Package contains proper rpm group + Package contains proper buildroot defintion + Proper definition of BRs and Reqs. + Fonts subpackage contains Req to common subpackages + Filelist doesn't contains duplicate files + Files have proper file permissions + Package contains no files belong to other packages + All packaged file are owned by this package + Rpmlint is ok for source and binary rpms. + Local build works fine + Local install works fine + Fonts was shown on fc-list + Local uninstall works fine + Koji build works fine + %doc stanza is only in common subpackage which is required on all other packages + Package has proper %changelog stanza Bad: - I can't figure out on which base you have determinate the upstream version of the font - Fonts are not built from sources because upstream doesn't provides one -- 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
