Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471243 --- Comment #5 from Michal Marciniszyn <mmarcini@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-13 10:43:37 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream. 2411c19ed4fb141f3fa3d389fae40736 docbook-5.0.zip + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is NOT included in package. redistributable without licence + %doc files present. + BuildRequires are proper. + defattr usage is correct. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code. + no static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + no translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + no scriptlets are used. + package docbook-schemas-5.0-1-fc11 -> Provides: config(docbook5-schemas) = 5.0-1.fc11 docbook5-dtd = 5.0-1.fc11 docbook5-rng = 5.0-1.fc11 docbook5-sch = 5.0-1.fc11 docbook5-xsd = 5.0-1.fc11 docbook5-schemas = 5.0-1.fc11 Requires: /bin/sh /bin/sh /usr/bin/perl config(docbook5-schemas) = 5.0-1.fc11 libxml2 >= 2.4.8 libxml2 >= 2.4.8 perl(English) perl(strict) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1 xml-common >= 0.6.3-24 + Not a GUI app. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review