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: lilypond-doc - HTML documentation for lilypond https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192502 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-05-20 11:34 EST ------- Since this is just a doc package, a quick review should suffice: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * source files match upstream: 45622b94aba72994277d6a0d4fcf706c lilypond-2.8.3-1.documentation.tar.bz2 45622b94aba72994277d6a0d4fcf706c lilypond-2.8.3-1.documentation.tar.bz2-srpm * latest version is being packaged. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. Note: code-not-content rule does not apply as this is merely documentation for a package already in extras, placed in a separate package so that it can be non-arch-specific. APPROVED -- 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