[Bug 420501] Review Request: silkscreen-fonts - Silkscreen four member type family
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun Jan 27 07:18:43 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: silkscreen-fonts - Silkscreen four member type family
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=420501
tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tibbs at math.uh.edu
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag| |fedora-review+
------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2008-01-27 02:18 EST -------
I've no clue why nobody has reviewed this yet; it's a trivial package that
follows the font guidelines to the letter.
* source files match upstream:
9ad38d3f7841ec2e0d55efcfcc1ed7e7d33f80463dc9831261d1fd9a06f57ff3
silkscreen.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* package follows font package guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text not included upstream.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper (none)
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
silkscreen-fonts = 1.0-1.fc9
=
/bin/sh
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* scriptlets are OK (fc-cache)
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
APPROVED
--
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