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: XPad - A sticky notes application https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193499 panemade@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |panemade@xxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From panemade@xxxxxxxxx 2006-06-19 06:14 EST ------- Review for this package:- Mock Build Results for i386 - Failed to built for i386 as package required libSM-devel - Add libSM-devel in Requires in SPEC file MUST Items: - MUST: rpmlint shows no error - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. - MUST: The spec file name matching the base package xpad, in the format xpad.spec - MUST: This package meets the Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license GPL. - MUST: The License field in the package xpad.spec file matches the actual license file COPYING in tarball. - MUST: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. md5sum is correct. - MUST: This package owns all directories that it creates. - MUST: This package did not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. - MUST: This package have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}. - MUST: This package used macros. - MUST: Document files are included like README. -- 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