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=520721
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |tibbs@math.uh.edu Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2009-09-10 01:06:08 EDT --- Builds fine and rpmlint is silent.
Generally I'd recommend using svn export instead of svn checkout as the latter generates .svn directories which aren't useful for a tarball release. Not a huge deal, of course.
I'm not sure the test suite does much of anything. I guess it shows that the program doesn't die, but without a set of expected data it has nothing to compare the generated output against.
Looks good to me.
* source files match upstream (compared manually after following checkout instructions) * package meets naming and versioning 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. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: gprof2dot = 1.0-0.1.20090901svn.fc12 = /usr/bin/env python
* %check is present and the test run at least doesn't crash. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * code, not content.
APPROVED