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: php-pear-Structures-DataGrid-DataSource-CSV - Structures_DataGrid driver for CSV files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433568
chris.stone@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review?
------- Additional Comments From chris.stone@gmail.com 2008-02-24 17:29 EST ------- ==== REVIEW CHECKLIST ==== - rpmlint output php-pear-Structures-DataGrid-DataSource-CSV.noarch: W: no-documentation php-pear-Structures-DataGrid-DataSource-CSV.noarch: W: filename-too-long-for-joliet php-pear-Structures-DataGrid-DataSource-CSV-0.1.6-1.fc8.noarch.rpm Okay. - package named according to package naming guidelines - spec filename matches %{name} - package meets packaging guidelines - licensed with fedora approved license - license tag matches actual license - license not provided in source package - spec written in American English - spec file legible - sources match upstream 10bbee186ed1be7f0d7615446d80bd71 Structures_DataGrid_DataSource_CSV-0.1.6.tgz 10bbee186ed1be7f0d7615446d80bd71 ../SOURCES/Structures_DataGrid_DataSource_CSV-0.1.6.tgz - successfully compiles and builds on F-8 x86_64 - All build dependencies listed in BR - no locales - no shared libraries - package is not relocatable - package requires necessary packages for directories it uses - no duplicates in %files - file permissions set properly - package contains proper %clean section - macro usage is consistent - package contains code - no large documentation - %doc files do not affect runtime - no header files - no static libraries - no pkgconfig files - no libraries with suffixes - no devel subpackage - no libtool archives - not a GUI application - package does not own files or directories owned by other packages - buildroot properly prepped for %install - all filenames valid UTF-8
*** APPROVED ***
You must now demonstrate your mastery of the package review guidelines by doing a review of someone else's package like the one I've just done here. You should try to find a package that has a mistake and point it out in the review if possible.