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=467154 David Lutterkort <lut...@redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #10 from David Lutterkort <lut...@redhat.com> 2009-02-25 19:08:42 EDT --- based on the Koji scratch build in http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1177393, a few minor things remain to be fixed: OK - Package name OK - License info is accurate OK - License tag is correct and licenses are approved OK - License files are installed as %doc OK - Specfile name OK - Specfile is legible OK - No prebuilt binaries included FIX - BuildRoot value (one of the recommended values) See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag OK - PreReq not used FIX - Source md5sum matches upstream No upstream release; make Source a URL to the download for the tarball OK - No hardcoded pathnames OK - Package owns all the files it installs OK - 'Requires' create needed unowned directories OK - Package builds successfully on i386 and x86_64 (mock) OK - BuildRequires sufficient FIX - File permissions set properly rpmlint complains that /usr/share/doc/libvirt-qpid-0.2.12 and /usr/share/libvirt-qpid are mode 02755 OK - Macro usage is consistent FIX - rpmlint is silent See above warnings about directory perms OK - Proper debuginfo packages -- 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
