[Bug 427411] Review Request: common-lisp-controller - Common Lisp source and compiler manager
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu May 29 02:16:38 UTC 2008
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: common-lisp-controller - Common Lisp source and compiler manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427411
michel.sylvan at gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |michel.sylvan at gmail.com
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag| |fedora-review?
------- Additional Comments From michel.sylvan at gmail.com 2008-05-28 22:16 EST -------
Ready for approval, contigent on three things being fixed (listed below):
- remove tabs
- check with legal on licensing (looks more liberal than LGPL so I'm personally
OK with it)
- include debian/copyright
MUST
• rpmlint:
- mixed use of space and tabs (trivial)
• package name: OK
• spec file name: OK
• package guideline-compliant: OK
• license complies with guidelines
LLGPL not in pre-approved list. Should legal take a look at it?
• license field accurate: OK
• license file not deleted: FAIL
please include debian/copyright file in %doc
• spec in US English: OK
• spec legible: OK
• source matches upstream: OK
• builds under >= 1 archs, others excluded: noarch, OK
• build dependencies complete: OK
• own all directories: OK
• no dupes in %files: OK
• permission: OK
• %clean RPM_BUILD_ROOT: OK
• macros used consistently: OK
• Package contains code: OK
• clean buildroot before install: OK
• filenames UTF-8: OK
SHOULD
• package build in mock on all architectures: OK
• package functioned as described: suggestion on how to test?
• scriplets are sane: OK
• require package not files: OK
--
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.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list