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=501385 Jochen Schmitt <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |[email protected] AssignedTo|[email protected] |[email protected] Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Jochen Schmitt <[email protected]> 2009-07-14 15:23:46 EDT --- Good: + Basename of SPEC files matches with package name + URL tag shows to proper project home page + Package contains proper License tag + License tag states GPLv2 as a valid OSS license + Package contains verbatin copy of the license text + Could download upstream source with spectool -g + Providate/Obsoletes statement seems ok for renaming + Package contains no subpackages + Package source tar ball matches with upstream (md5sum: 68a27a56334d4ab44b3b44a81f84d8a8) + Proper BuildRoot definition + Local build works fine + Rpmlint is silent for Source rpm + Rpmlint is silent for binary rpm + Koji build works fine + Local install works fine. + %files stanza contains no duplicates + All files are owned by the package + %files contains no package which are belaongs to other packages + package contains proper %Changelog stanza Bad: - License tag states GPLv2 but the copyright state GPLv2+ as the license for the project. - Why you put the jar files into %{_datadir}/dirsrv/manual/html/java? - Because the manual seems to be very large, a separate doc subpackage make sense -- 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
