https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847484
--- Comment #2 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)scrye.com> ---
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (GPLv2+)
OK - License field in spec matches
See below - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
83a16d4ed5a3f2cab1ffb40b3f0a086d ./HTTP302Found-2.0.tar.gz
83a16d4ed5a3f2cab1ffb40b3f0a086d rpmbuild/SOURCES/HTTP302Found-2.0.tar.gz
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - Package obey's FHS standard (except for 2 exceptions)
OK - No rpmlint output.
See below - final provides and requires are sane.
SHOULD Items:
OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should function as described.
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version
OK - Should not use file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or
/usr/sbin
Issues:
1. Not a blocker, but might include a COPYING gplv2 file with the package.
2. rpmlint says:
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
3. Does this require mediawiki 1.19? Fedora seems to only/currenly have 1.16
right now.
(Maintainer should really update or new maintainer found).
The issue in point 3 should be solved before this is imported...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.