[Bug 478660] Review Request: dateshift - A date/time test tool

[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=478660


Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |tcallawa at redhat.com
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tcallawa at redhat.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+




--- Comment #1 from Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com>  2009-01-21 17:57:30 EDT ---
Review
=======
Good:

- rpmlint checks return:
dateshift.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libdsintercept.so.0.0.0
exit at GLIBC_2.2.5
dateshift-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation

You should continue trying to get upstream to resolve this, but I won't block
this package review on it.

- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream (0bcc71038686a1afdd0713b01eb81e7652634fa6)
- license text in %doc
- package compiles on devel (x86_64)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file 

Bad:

- License tag (GPLv2) is wrong. License tag should be GPLv2+.

*****
Please fix the license tag before you commit to cvs, but 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.