[Bug 485007] Review Request: rhnpush - Package uploader for the RHN Satellite/Spacewalk Server

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485007





--- Comment #8 from Marcela Maslanova <mmaslano at redhat.com>  2009-02-20 08:22:59 EDT ---
OK source files match upstream 3b53e8a569b7e486634482216410669d
OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
OK dist tag is present.
OK build root is correct.
OK license field (GPLv2) matches the actual license.
OK license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream.
OK latest version is being packaged.
OK BuildRequires are proper.
OK %clean is present.
OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64).
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1142201
OK debuginfo package isn't need.
OK rpmlint is silent.
OK final provides and requires look sane.
OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
OK owns the directories it creates.
OK no duplicates in %files.
OK file permissions are appropriate.
OK no scriptlets present.
OK code, not content.
OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
OK no headers.
OK no pkgconfig files.
OK no libtool .la droppings.

What about BR? Is there reason for using %{_bindir}/msgfmt instead of gettext
and %{_bindir}/docbook2man instead of docbook-utils?

-- 
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.