[Bug 233598] Review Request: elisa - Media Center
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun May 20 13:59:28 UTC 2007
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: elisa - Media Center
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233598
lxtnow at gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-05-20 09:59 EST -------
(in reply to comment #19)
surely...^^
Well,
OK - Mock : Built on FC6 en F-7 (i386 and x86_64)
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License is LGPL
OK - License match extras packaging policy licenses allowed
OK - License file is included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources SHOULD match upstream md5sum:
c9ce0b7b3519577b5f460b20c42e04c9 elisa-1.6.0.tar.gz
OK - Package has correct buildroot.
OK - BuildRequires isn't redundant.
OK - %build and %install stages is correct and work.
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Changelog section is correct.
OK - Should function as described.
OK - Should package latest version
------------------------------------------------
Rpmlint output:
------------------------------------------------
OK - silent on both srpm and rpm.
==============
** APPROVED **
==============
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list