[Bug 197442] Review Request: fatsort - sort fat of FAT32/FAT16 on cheap mp3 players
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Jul 6 09:47:36 UTC 2006
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: fatsort - sort fat of FAT32/FAT16 on cheap mp3 players
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197442
panemade at gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |panemade at gmail.com
------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2006-07-06 05:38 EST -------
== Not an official review as I'm not yet sponsored ==
Mock build for development i386 is sucessfull
* MUST Items:
- MUST: rpmlint shows no error
- MUST: dist tag is present
- MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- MUST: The spec file name matching the base package fatsort, in the
format fatsort.spec
- MUST: This package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license GPL.
- MUST: This Package contains License file as LICENSE.txt
- MUST: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. md5sum is correct (ddf8e98b27455da104e8cca13d29d0cc).
- MUST: This package owns all directories that it creates.
- MUST: This package did not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
- MUST: This package have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
- MUST: This package used macros.
- MUST: Document files are included like README.
- MUST: Package did NOT contained any .la libtool archives.
* Source URL is present and working.
* BuildRoot is correct BuildRoot:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* BuildRequires is correct
--
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