[Bug 508849] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Server-Bayeux - Bayeux/cometd server implementation in POE
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Jun 30 19:26:53 UTC 2009
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=508849
Jochen Schmitt <jochen at herr-schmitt.de> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |jochen at herr-schmitt.de
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jochen at herr-schmitt.de
Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Jochen Schmitt <jochen at herr-schmitt.de> 2009-06-30 15:26:52 EDT ---
Good:
+ Basename of SPEC files matches with package name
+ Package name fullfill naming guidelines
+ URL tag shows on proper project homepage
+ Could download upstream sources via spectool -g
+ Package source tar ball matches with upstream
(md5sum: dd18ab3f61f390fbc96a8dc8a15aa447)
* Package has proper License tag
+ License Tag says GPLv2 and Artistic as OSS license
* Copyright note in the source files matches with license tag
+ Package has proper Buildroot definition
+ Consistently usage of rpm macros
+ Proper Buildroot definition
+ BuidRoot will be clean at the beginning of %clean and %install
+ Package will be built for noarch
* Local build works fine
+ Package has a %check stanza
+ Rpmlint is quite for source rpm
+ rpmlint is quite for binary rpm
+ Scratch build on koji works fine
+ Local install and uninstall works fine
+ %doc stanza is small, no extra subpackage in required
+ Files has proper files permission
+ %files contains no duplicated entries
+ All packaged files are owned by this package
+ No packaged files belong to another package
+ package has proper Changelog
Bad:
- Package doesn't contains verbain copy of the license (no blocker)
** 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.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list