Bugzilla will be upgraded to version 5.0 on a still to be determined date in the near future. The original upgrade date has been delayed.
Bug 225763 - Merge Review: fonts-indic
Merge Review: fonts-indic
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Parag AN(पराग)
Fedora Package Reviews List
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2007-01-31 13:39 EST by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2007-11-30 17:11 EST (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2007-08-16 01:53:02 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
panemade: fedora‑review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)
rpmlint silent SPEC file (9.31 KB, text/x-rpm-spec)
2007-07-27 01:42 EDT, Parag AN(पराग)
no flags Details

  None (edit)
Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 13:39:12 EST
Fedora Merge Review: fonts-indic

Initial Owner: pnemade@redhat.com
Comment 1 Parag Nemade 2007-02-01 05:16:45 EST
Before any reviewer will pick this package, I made it as per FE guidelines and
updated a new RPM of this package today. So i think i will need now a formal
official review here :)
Comment 2 Parag Nemade 2007-02-01 05:17:24 EST
However, I will be happy to see some missing packaging improvement here.
Comment 3 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-07-27 01:39:01 EDT
Initial Owner: rbhalera@redhat.com
Comment 4 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-07-27 01:42:22 EDT
Created attachment 160096 [details]
rpmlint silent SPEC file

update cvs with this SPEC and build new package
Comment 5 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-07-27 06:03:42 EDT
+ package builds in mock (development i386).
+ rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM.
+ source files match upstream url
bb9497ee772062b97ff00a1a68b17c98  fonts-indic-2.1.5.tar.gz
+ 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.
+ build root is correct.
+ 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 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.
+ fonts scriptlets present.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ Not a GUI App.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.