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=480146 Jochen Schmitt <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |[email protected] Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jochen Schmitt <[email protected]> 2009-01-15 13:32:16 EDT --- God: + Package name fits naming guideline + Basename of SPEC file fits package name + Could download upstrem tar ball via spectool + Tar ball in Package matches with upstream (md5sum: 825f48384febefacf0717738e909321) + Consistently usage of rpm macros + Package contains most recent release of thw software + License tag has a valid value + License tag state BSD as a valid OSS license + Package contains a verbatin license text + Local build works fine + Package will build as noarch + Rpmlint ok for source rpm + Buildroot will be cleaned on the beginning of %install and %clean % All packaged files are owned by the package + No files has a complict with other package + %doc stanza is small, so we need no extra doc subpackage + Proper %changelog stanza Bad: - Rpmlint complaints, that file in %{python_sitelib} should be executables - Please notify upstream, that eatch source file should have a copyright notice - Koji build failed. Please change 'BR python' to 'BR python-devel' -- 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 [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
