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=508849
Jochen Schmitt jochen@herr-schmitt.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |jochen@herr-schmitt.de AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jochen@herr-schmitt.de Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Jochen Schmitt jochen@herr-schmitt.de 2009-06-30 15:26:52 EDT --- Good: + Basename of SPEC files matches with package name + Package name fullfill naming guidelines + URL tag shows on proper project homepage + Could download upstream sources via spectool -g + Package source tar ball matches with upstream (md5sum: dd18ab3f61f390fbc96a8dc8a15aa447) * Package has proper License tag + License Tag says GPLv2 and Artistic as OSS license * Copyright note in the source files matches with license tag + Package has proper Buildroot definition + Consistently usage of rpm macros + Proper Buildroot definition + BuidRoot will be clean at the beginning of %clean and %install + Package will be built for noarch * Local build works fine + Package has a %check stanza + Rpmlint is quite for source rpm + rpmlint is quite for binary rpm + Scratch build on koji works fine + Local install and uninstall works fine + %doc stanza is small, no extra subpackage in required + Files has proper files permission + %files contains no duplicated entries + All packaged files are owned by this package + No packaged files belong to another package + package has proper Changelog
Bad: - Package doesn't contains verbain copy of the license (no blocker)
** APPROVED **