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=530090 Jochen Schmitt <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |[email protected] AssignedTo|[email protected] |[email protected] Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jochen Schmitt <[email protected]> 2009-10-21 14:11:13 EDT --- Good: + Package nameing fullfill naming guidelines + Package is written in English + Consistently usage of rpmmacros + URL shows on proper project homepage + Could download upstream package via spectool -g + Package fullfill emacs packaging guidelines + Package tarball matches with upstream (md5sum: 940f1b6a08a346af8c0174ce4623b5cf) + License tag states GPLv3 as a OSS license + Local build works fine + Rpmlint is quite on source rpmmacros + Rpmlint is ok for binary rpms + Koji build works fine. + Local install and uninstall works fine + files has proper file permission + All files are owned by the package + Documentation is small, so we need no extra subpackage + Package has proper Changelog Bad: - Package doesn't contains most recent release of the application. The most recent release is 30.8. - License tag should be GPLv2+ which is stated in the header of the source code files - Why you use '-n %{name}-el'. We should prefer 'el' for the subpackage name. - Package doesn't contains a verbatin copy of the license. please contact upstream for getting one in the upstream 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
