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=514602
Jochen Schmitt <jochen(a)herr-schmitt.de> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jochen(a)herr-schmitt.de
AssignedTo|sgrubb(a)redhat.com |jochen(a)herr-schmitt.de
Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Jochen Schmitt <jochen(a)herr-schmitt.de> 2009-07-30 13:51:44 EDT
---
Good:
+ Basename of the SPEC file matches with package name
+ Package has a proper project homepage
+ Could downloading source via spectool -g
* Consistently usage of rpm macros
+ Package tarball matches with upstream
(md5sum: 2f47c6549b6adee06126243ec2162cb9)
+ Package contains no subpackages
+ Package has a valid licen tag
+ The license tag states GPLv2 as a valid OSS license
+ Copyrigh notes on headers matches with license tag
+ Package contains a verbatin copy of the license text
+ Local build works fine
+ Package support SMP build
+ Package use %find_lang macro
+ Rpmlint is silent on binary rpm.
+ Debunginfo package contains source files
+ Koji build works fine
+ Files has proper permisions
+ All packaged files are owned by the package
+ No packaged file belong to another package
+ %Ddoc is small, so we don't need a separate subpackage
+ Package contains proper %ChangeLog
Bad:
- Package contains not a BuildRoot tag.
- Buildroot will not been clean on the start of %clean and %install
- The package description could be more verbose.
As a minimum you should wrote:
this package provide a GUI which allows the user to
configure the linux audit subsystem.
- Please create a conflict statement agains the audit package
before the splitt off.
--
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.