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=480486 Jochen Schmitt <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |[email protected] AssignedTo|[email protected] |[email protected] Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Jochen Schmitt <[email protected]> 2009-01-20 15:57:37 EDT --- Good: + Package names fits with naming guideline of emacs addon + Basename of the SPEC files matches with package name + Package contains el subpackage for emacs source code + Package contains a valid License tag + Package contains GPLv2+ as a valid OSS license + Copyright note of source file matches with license tag + Could download source file from upstream via spectool -g + consistently usage of rpm macros + Packaged source metches with upstream (md5sum: 7cc77e3e44beecb688b744464159af9e) + Local build works fine + Local install works fine + Local uninstall works fine + Koji build works fine + Buildroot will be cleaned on beginning of the %clean and %install stanza + Rümlint is quite on source package + Package contains subpackage for elisp source + el subpackage contains proper Req. to main package + Rpmlint ok for binary package + Packaged files contains proper files permissions + Packaged files are owned by the package + Package has no %doc stanza + Package contains proper %changelog stanza Bad: - htmlize-init file contains no copyright notice TODO: - Package doesn't contains a verbatin copy of the license, Please ask upstream to include a verbatin copy of it -- 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
