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: daap-sharp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190939 cweyl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From cweyl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-05-25 20:30 EST ------- Sorry for the delay. Good: - rpmlint checks return: daap-sharp-0.3.3-3.src.rpm E: daap-sharp hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib E: daap-sharp hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name} daap-sharp-0.3.3-3.x86_64.rpm E: daap-sharp no-binary E: daap-sharp only-non-binary-in-usr-lib E: daap-sharp script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/daap-sharp/daap-sharp.dll.configdaap-sharp-debuginfo-0.3.3-3.x86_64.rpm daap-sharp-devel-0.3.3-3.x86_64.rpm W: daap-sharp-devel no-documentation All errors and warnings expected for mono packages. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (LGPL) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - devel package ok - no .la files - devel requires base package n-v-r Not a must, but why not: - include AUTHORS, ChangeLog, README, etc, in %doc? - include the samples in %doc? 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