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=478660 Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-21 17:57:30 EDT --- Review ======= Good: - rpmlint checks return: dateshift.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libdsintercept.so.0.0.0 exit@xxxxxxxxxxx dateshift-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation You should continue trying to get upstream to resolve this, but I won't block this package review on it. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream (0bcc71038686a1afdd0713b01eb81e7652634fa6) - license text in %doc - 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 - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file Bad: - License tag (GPLv2) is wrong. License tag should be GPLv2+. ***** Please fix the license tag before you commit to cvs, but this package is 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