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=509158 --- Comment #2 from Jochen Schmitt <[email protected]> 2009-07-01 12:41:44 EDT --- here are some point of my pre-review: Good: + Basename of the SPEC file matches with package name + Package doesn't contains subpackages + Local build works fine + Package has no %doc stanza + BuildRoot will be cleaned at the beginning of %clean and %install Bad: - Because the package should be fedora specific, it should be named as fedora-gnat-... - Source tag contains not a fully qualified URI. Submitter should create a project on fedorahosted.org - Could not check packaged tar ball agains upstream. - Package doesn#t contains a URL tag - License tag say 'Copyright only' this is not a valid OSS license - Package contains not a verbatin copy of the license text - Pleace use %{_sysconfdir} instead of /etc in the %files stanza - you should use a version like 0.1 instead of 1, because I'm assume your are the upstream and this is the first release of the software - Package has no proper BuildRoot definition If you have any question, you may contact me via email -- 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
