https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846348

Jaroslav Škarvada <[email protected]> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|needinfo?([email protected] |
                   |om)                         |

--- Comment #2 from Jaroslav Škarvada <[email protected]> ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Thanks for the review.
> Issues:
> 
> [!]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
>      Putty icon is one of the sources while it can be generated using
>        the source codes: make -C icons putty-32.png
>
Probably too pedantic. I think the current state is not against the guidelines,
but no problem to generate it.

> [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
>      $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
>      Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL
> See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean
> [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
>      Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
>      for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
> See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
> [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at
> the
>      beginning of %install.
>      Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
>
All are no MUST, bug in fedora-review tool that should be fixed now. I am going
to let it all there for future EPEL inclusion.

> [!]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
>      justified.
>
I inherited the patch from previous maintainer, but no problem to add small
comment.

New files:
Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jskarvad/putty.spec
SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jskarvad/putty-0.62-2.fc17.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
[email protected]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

Reply via email to