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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From bdpepple@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-06-01 15:32 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 Minor: * Any reason why you use '%define _libdir %{_exec_prefix}/lib' instead of '%define _libdir /usr/lib'? Your macro doesn't appear to be fixing anything, and needs be corrected before importing into CVS. Notes: * rpmlint gives the following error, which can be ignored since it's a mono package: E: monodoc no-binary E: monodoc only-non-binary-in-usr-lib * In the future, it would make reviewing easier if you used the spec file templates from the fedora-rpmdevtools package. +1 ACCEPT -- 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