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=553127
Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com 2010-01-27 09:59:47 EST --- MUST items: [YES] rpmplint on spec and RPMs is silent [YES] Package meets naming guidelines. [YES] Package meets packaging guidelines. [YES] Spec file matches base package name. [YES] License file is present, matching with spec file. [YES] Licensing Guidelines are met. [YES] Spec file is legible and in American English. [YES] Sources match upstream. [YES] Package builds OK. [YES] BuildRequires is correct. [YES] Package doesn't bundle copies of system libraries. [YES] Package owns all the directories it creates. [YES] Package has no duplicity in %files. [YES] Permission on files are set properly. [YES] %clean section is correct. [YES] Spec file has consistant macro usage. [YES] Package is code or permissable content. [YES] %doc files don't affect runtime. [YES] No .la libtool archives. [YES][Perl] Package doesn't own files/directories that other packages own. [YES] Package has rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at beginning of %install. [YES] All files are valid UTF-8.
Should items: [YES] Package builds in mock. [YES] Package uses sane scriptlets. [YES] Package contains man pages.