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: nant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957 ------- Additional Comments From jpmahowald@xxxxxxxxx 2006-07-08 19:10 EST ------- Almost there. nant-0.85-4.src.rpm On nant-docs: * Missing dependancy on scrollkeeper-update for %post (package scrollkeeper) * Missing dependancy on scrollkeeper-update for %postun (package scrollkeeper) rpmlint: W: nant non-standard-group Development/Other Suggest Development/Tools W: nant strange-permission nant-0.85-rc4-src.tar.gz 0666 W: nant strange-permission nant.spec 0666 Ignore. E: nant non-utf8-spec-file nant.spec file says nant.spec: ISO-8859 Java program text. Save as utf8. W: nant rpm-buildroot-usage %build export MONO_PATH=%{buildroot}/lib E: nant hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/lib Needed, as far as I can tell. Ignore. E: nant no-binary Ignore. E: nant only-non-binary-in-usr-lib Assemblies and such. Ignore. W: nant wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/nant-0.85/license.html W: nant wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/nant-0.85/COPYING.txt W: nant wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/nant-0.85/README.txt W: nant wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/nant-0.85/releasenotes.html And everything from nant-docs has wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding. Optionally fix these. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (GPL) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - 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 - -docs package - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file -- 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