Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: perl-perlmenu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199254 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-31 22:53 EST ------- OK - Package name OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. See below - License(LGPL or Artistic) See below - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: b931859ed581970f3fb05420316b39d3 perlmenu.v4.0.tar.gz b931859ed581970f3fb05420316b39d3 perlmenu.v4.0.tar.gz.1 OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - No rpmlint output. SHOULD Items: OK - Should include License or ask upstream to include it. OK - Should build in mock. Issues: 1. The license seems to have changed to LGPL or artistic, not GPL. You have: License: GPL or Artistic -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
