[Bug 805416] Review Request: google-croscore-fonts - The width-compatible fonts for improved on-screen readability

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=805416

Akira TAGOH <tagoh at redhat.com> changed:

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

--- Comment #9 from Akira TAGOH <tagoh at redhat.com> 2012-03-27 07:11:21 EDT ---
Here we go:

* rpmlint result:
  google-croscore-fonts.src: W: no-url-tag
  google-croscore-fonts.src: W: invalid-url Source0: 
http://gsdview.appspot.com/chromeos-localmirror/distfiles/croscorefonts-1.21.0.tar.gz
HTTP Error 405: Method Not Allowed
  1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

  google-croscore-arimo-fonts.noarch: W: no-url-tag
  google-croscore-arimo-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
  google-croscore-cousine-fonts.noarch: W: no-url-tag
  google-croscore-cousine-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
  google-croscore-fonts-common.noarch: W: no-url-tag
  google-croscore-symbolneu-fonts.noarch: W: no-url-tag
  google-croscore-symbolneu-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
  google-croscore-tinos-fonts.noarch: W: no-url-tag
  google-croscore-tinos-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
  5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.

+ package name meets the naming guidelines
+ the spec file name matches %{name}.spec
+ package meets the packaging guidelines
+ package meets the licensing guidelines
+ License field has the actual license
+ License file is available in the package
+ the spec file is written in American English
+ the spec file is legible
+ the sources matches the upstream source
+ the package can be built into binary rpms
* no locale files available
* no shared libraries available
+ package owns directories it creates
+ package consistently uses macros
* no large documentation files available
* no devel files available
* no desktop files available

Is it maybe a good idea to move the source URL to the comment and have the name
of tarball in the Source field perhaps? otherwise it looks good to me.
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.