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=479866 Alexander Kurtakov <akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Alexander Kurtakov <akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-22 16:34:34 EDT --- OK rpmlint shows no warnings OK package named correctly OK spec file named correctly OK meets the Packaging Guidelines . OK license is correct, approved and in the %doc OK The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK Shell script for fetching sources is included OK The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. OK owns all directories OK doesn't contain any duplicate files OK permissions are correctly set OK clean section present OK Each package must consistently use macros. OK The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK no large documentation files OK If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. OK Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. T OK At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 The package is good to go. -- 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