[Bug 574053] Review Request: hyphen-tk - Turkmen hyphenation rules

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Mar 22 03:54:05 UTC 2010


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=574053

Parag AN(पराग) <panemade at gmail.com> changed:

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

--- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade at gmail.com> 2010-03-21 23:54:00 EDT ---
Review:
+ package builds in mock (rawhide i686).
koji Build =>http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2067170
+ rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM.
- source files does NOT match upstream url (sha1sum)
d2d16ca6b9eb3e1361ecae342905774d0c156225  hyph-tk.tex
3fbe103d7d3dbed90b84a31014cf19eb7ea42978  ../SOURCES/hyph-tk.tex
But I am sure this should not be problem as upstream moved further and changed
source since SRPM submitted.
+ package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
+ specfile is properly named, is cleanly written
+ Spec file is written in American English.
+ Spec file is legible.
+ dist tag is present.
+ license is open source-compatible.
+ License text is included in package.
+ %doc is present.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ %clean is present.
+ package installed properly.
+ Macro use appears rather consistent.
+ Package contains code, not content.
+ no headers or static libraries.
+ no .pc file present.
+ no -devel subpackage
+ no .la files.
+ no translations are available
+ Does owns the directories it creates.
+ no scriptlets present.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ Not a GUI application

Suggestions:
 Please include current svn source.

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.


More information about the package-review mailing list