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=501228 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 #2 from Jochen Schmitt <joc...@herr-schmitt.de> 2009-05-18 12:44:36 EDT --- Good: + Basename of the SPEC file matches with package name. + Package name fullfill naming guidelines + URL tag show on proper project home page. + Could download upstream tar ball via spectool -g + Package contains valid License tag + License tag state ASL 2.0 as a valid OSS license + Package contains verbatin copy of the license tag + License in the source file header matches with license tag + Package tar ball matches with upstream (md5sum: 855b8b05fd71b39277f2ffbe4c7ae376) + Rpmlint is quiete on source rpm + Package contains smp-enabled build step + Package contains no subpackages + Package has proper defintion of Buildroot + Buildroot will be cleaned on the start of %clean and %install + %doc stanza is small, so we need no extra doc subpackage + %files stanza have proper %defattr statemend + %files standza haven't duplicated file entries + All package files are owned by the package + No package files belong to another package + Package has proper %Changelog Bad: - Package fails on koji (pleas see: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1361107) This happens only for 64-bit architectures - Package could no build localy on F-10 because of dependencies -- 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
