[Bug 195412] Review Request: obconf
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Jun 16 06:38:13 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: obconf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195412
panemade at gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |panemade at gmail.com
------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2006-06-16 02:30 EST -------
Review for this package:-
MUST Items:
- MUST: rpmlint shows no error
- MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- MUST: The spec file name matching the base package obconf, in the format
obconf.spec
- MUST: This package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license GPL.
- MUST: The License field in the package obconf.spec file matches the
actual license in COPYING file in tarball.
- MUST: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
- MUST: The package successfully compiled and build into binary rpms on i386.
- 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
%{buildroot}.
- MUST: This package used macros.
- MUST: Document files are included.
- MUST: This Package did not contained any .la libtool archives
- MUST: This Package include a obconf.desktop file, and that file is
installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section with following warning
obconf.desktop: key "Categories" string list not semicolon-terminated, fixing
- MUST: No duplicate files in installation
--
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