Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: hotssh - An interface to Secure Shell, for GNOME and OpenSSH https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456542 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-28 18:00 EST ------- Review ========== [-] source files match upstream: no upstream source, as you are upstream please upload it. [+] package meets naming and versioning guidelines. [-] specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently: one minior issue: changelog does not match version [+] dist tag is present. [+] build root is correct. (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) is the recommended value, but not the only one) [+] license field matches the actual license. [+] license is open source-compatible. (include one of the below) license text not included upstream. [+] license text included in package. [?] latest version is being packaged. well I am sure it is its even newer than what is on the upstream server ;) [-] BuildRequires are proper: BR: desktop-file-utils is missing for desktop-file-install [+] %clean is present. [-] package builds in koji: no due to missing BR (desktop-file-install) [+] package installs properly. NOTE: tested with local build [-] rpmlint is silent. hotssh.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/hotssh.csh hotssh.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/hotssh.sh hotssh.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.2.1-1 0.2.1-2.fc9 First two warings can be ignored, last one is already noted above please fix. [+] owns the directories it creates. [+] doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. [+] no duplicates in %files. [+] file permissions are appropriate. [+] code, not content. [+] documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. [+] %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. [+] desktop files valid and installed properly. ======== Comments: Please do the following fixes: 1) Upload the source tarball. 2) Fix the changelog 3) add the missing BR After those are done I will approve the package. There are easy to fix so it should be your last round of fixups ;) -- 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, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
