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: gnubiff https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192546 bdpepple@xxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From bdpepple@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-05-23 15:26 EST ------- MD5Sums: 8d2ef679f42e7a593dc88b750d0cca4c gnubiff-2.2.1.tar.gz Good: * Source URL is canonical * 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 * All directories are owned by this or other packages * All necessary BuildRequires listed. * All desired features are enabled * Package builds in Mock. * Package installs and uninstalls cleanly on FC5. * rpmlint produces no error. Bad: * Don't pass '--prefix=`pkg-config libpanelapplet-2.0 openssl --variable=prefix`' to the %configure macro. It's not needed. Minor: * In the file section, '%{_datadir}/info' should be '%{_infodir}'. Refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/RPMMacros * Unnecessary documentation: ABOUT-NLS & Changelog. The first is a generic build tools file, and the second is duplicate information that is included in the NEWS file. Once these items are fixed, considered this approved. +1 Approve -- 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