[Bug 732200] Review Request: Berusky2 - 3D sequel of Berusky

[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=732200

Richard Shaw <hobbes1069 at gmail.com> changed:

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

--- Comment #19 from Richard Shaw <hobbes1069 at gmail.com> 2011-09-02 12:30:02 EDT ---
+: OK
-: must be fixed
=: should be fixed (at your discretion)
?: Question or clairification needed
N: not applicable

MUST:
[+] rpmlint output: shown in comment: No show stoppers. Changelog should
probably contain something since you're the upstream maintainer now.
[+] follows package naming guidelines
[+] spec file base name matches package name
[+] package meets the packaging guidelines
[+] package uses a Fedora approved license: GPLv2+
[+] license field matches the actual license.
[+] license file is included in %doc: COPYING
[+] spec file is in American English
[+] spec file is legible
[+] sources match upstream: md5sum matches (f60e75a49ae167945a2c21027fac08fb)
[+] package builds on at least one primary arch: Tested F15 i686
[+] appropriate use of ExcludeArch
[+] all build requirements in BuildRequires
[N] spec file handles locales properly
[N] ldconfig in %post and %postun
[+] no bundled copies of system libraries
[N] no relocatable packages
[+] package owns all directories that it creates
[+] no files listed twice in %files
[+] proper permissions on files
[+] consistent use of macros
[+] code or permissible content
[N] large documentation in -doc
[+] no runtime dependencies in %doc
[N] header files in -devel
[N] static libraries in -static
[N] .so in -devel
[N] -devel requires main package
[+] package contains no libtool archives
[+] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install/validate
[+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages
[+] all filenames in UTF-8

SHOULD:
[+] query upstream for license text
[N] description and summary contains available translations
[+] package builds in mock
[+] package builds on all supported arches
[+] package functions as described: Managed to crash it, but will submit a bug
report once it's made it into the available components.
[+] sane scriptlets
[+] subpackages require the main package
[N] placement of pkgconfig files
[N] file dependencies versus package dependencies
[N] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts

I'm not going to worry about dong a "full review" on the data package because
most of it would be N/A. 

I'm downloading the data archive now to verify the md5sum but since you're the
upstream maintainer I trust you.

*** 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.