Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: monodoc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178900 bdpepple@xxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|caillon@xxxxxxxxxx |bdpepple@xxxxxxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From bdpepple@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-05-12 11:09 EST ------- MD5Sums: b5366181170e473c918537af145adafb monodoc-1.1.13.tar.gz Good: * Upstream source tarball verified * Package name conforms to the Fedora Naming Guidelines * Group Tag is from the official list * Buildroot has all required elements * All paths begin with macros * Builds fine in Mock Bad: * COPYING file should be added to %doc. * Inconsistent use of ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} & %{buildroot}. * Ownership problems with some of the directories. In general, you don't want to use wildcards to pull in children directories. * Unnecessary scriptlet for shared libraries, which this package doesn't have. Minor: * rpmlint errors: E: monodoc no-binary E: monodoc only-non-binary-in-usr-lib W: monodoc no-documentation W: monodoc devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/pkgconfig/monodoc.pc W: monodoc one-line-command-in-%postun /sbin/ldconfig Most of these can be ignored since this is a mono package, and the ones that should be addressed are mention in the Bad section of this review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review