[Bug 437419] Review Request: edrip-fonts - Edrip decorative fonts

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Mar 26 00:19:37 UTC 2008


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: edrip-fonts - Edrip decorative fonts


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=437419


kevin at tummy.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com  2008-03-25 20:19 EST -------
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (OFL)
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
066f36f19f8a5c817028ad5e99210478  edrip-src-20080310.tar.bz2
066f36f19f8a5c817028ad5e99210478  edrip-src-20080310.tar.bz2.sav
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. 
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install

OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - No rpmlint output.
OK - final provides and requires are sane.

SHOULD Items:

OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should function as described.
OK - Should have dist tag
See below - Should package latest version

Issues:

1. 20080318 is out, perhaps update to that before importing?

2. The
Source0:   %{URL}/%{archivename}.tar.bz2
doesn't seem to work with spectool.
Why not just replace %{URL} with the URL. Do you expect it to keep changing?
Why not replace %{archivename} with the more standard %{name}-src-%{release} ?

It would be good for spectool -g to work with your Source0 line in any case.

Neither of those is a big deal, if you could look at them before importing,
that would be great.

This package is 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, or are watching someone who is.




More information about the fonts-bugs mailing list