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=509990 Stepan Kasal <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |[email protected] AssignedTo|[email protected] |[email protected] Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Stepan Kasal <[email protected]> 2009-07-07 08:36:25 EDT --- FAIL no upstream - please put these results to your web page, perhaps to jfch.fedorapeople.org - create a short page for the package - giving back to the comunity OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK build root is correct. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible, license text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK no compiler flags OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock. OK package installs properly. OK no debuginfo FAIL rpmlint complains W: no URL: tag After creating a page for the project, please add "URL:" tag to the spec file OK no provides nor requires OK no %check, no test suite OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK no scriptlets present. OK code, not content. -- Well, this requires a comment: the package contains data exclusively. The data are precomputed list of compromised keys, as created on computers affected by CVE-2008-0166. The programs made to defend security cannot work without this list, so this package is more similar to a game level data than to a "content". (cf http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Code_Vs_Content) OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers, no pkgconfig, .la, nor desktop files. Please fix the two FAIL issues above and I'll approve the package. -- 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
