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=484931 --- Comment #5 from Jochen Schmitt <joc...@herr-schmitt.de> 2009-02-12 11:38:17 EDT --- Good: + Base name of the SPEC file metches with package name. + Package name fullfill the naming guidelines + Package contains current release of the application + Could download sources from upstream + Packaged souces metches with upstream one. (md5sum: 260c55fe010520cbe894c97b224f996b) + Package contains valid license tag + License tag contains GPLv2+ as an valid OSS license + License on the license tag fit with copyright note of the included source files + Package contains verbatin copy of the license text + Proper use of the %{?dist] tag + Proper defintion of the Buildroot + Buildroot will been cleaned on the beginning of %clean and %install + Consistently rpm macro usage + Package use parallel build + Local build works fine. + Koji build works fine. + Rpmlint is quite on source rpm + Rpmlint is quite on binary rpm + Rpmlint is quite on debuginfo package + Files hat proper files permissions + %files stanza has no duplicated entries + All packaged files are owned by the package + %doc stanza is small, so we need no deparate subpackage + package contains desktop entry file. + Proper %changelog Bad: - Please change Provides of the main package and the subpackage as discussed in comment #3 - Package doesn't honor $RPM_OPT_FLAGS - Please remove the -p switch on make install - Debuginfo package contains no sources Question: * Does the sampler subpackage not requires the main subpackage? -- 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
