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: Linux-Complete-Backup-and-Recovery-HOWTO - bare metal recovery scripts & docs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250747
------- Additional Comments From nsboyle@gmail.com 2007-08-13 23:35 EST ------- I'm not sponsored, so this isn't official:
? - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines --> Seems more a set of scripts than documentation... although I could be looking at what it does all wrong :P Consider renaming after script-suite? OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK? - Spec has consistant macro usage. --> $RPM_BUILD_ROOT could be macro-ified as %{buildroot} OK - License field in spec matches OK - License is GPL OK - License file is included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. NOT OK - Sources SHOULD match upstream md5sum --> Source: e44ce87defb0b7f3688dbbded79bedc4 Package: e44ce87defb0b7f3688dbbded79bedc4 OK - Package has correct buildroot. OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. ? - Changelog section is correct. --> Not sure if one should put such direct references to the specfile in %changelog... but it's probably bad form to change the %changelog after the fact...