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=534168 Jochen Schmitt <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #8 from Jochen Schmitt <[email protected]> 2009-12-03 12:48:21 EDT --- Good: + Basename of the SPEC file matches with package name + Name of the package fullfill naming guidelines + Consistently usage of rpm macros + URL tag shows to proper project homepage + License tag state ASL 2.0 as valid OSS license + License in the copyright notes on the top of the source files matches license stated by the license tag + Could download upstream sources via spectool -g + Package sources matches with upstream (md5sum: d50466fab035b9c4eaff87e8eadb119d) + Package contains a javadoc subpackage + Package has proper BuildRoot definition + BuildRoot will be cleaned at the beginning of %clean and %install + Local build works fine. + Rpmlint is silent on source package + Rpmlint is silent on binary package + Rpmlint is silent on javadoc subpackage + Scratch build on koji works fine + Local install and uninstall works fine + Start of application works without a crash + GUI menu works fine + Fies have proper permissions + Files stanza has no duplicated entries + All package files and dirs are own by the package + No file or dir may belong to another package + %doc stanza is small + Package has proper changelog Bad: - File LICENSE.txt doesn't contains a verbatin copy of the license text. Insteand you find a link to the license text provided by a website. - Not all source files seems to have a copyright notice. - It may be nice, if can the chose a shrter text for the GenericName tag in the desktop file -- 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
