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=225694 Lucian Langa <cooly@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Lucian Langa <cooly@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-23 13:52:23 EDT --- Thank you for the update. I note you are not using %{?dist} tag, however this is not a blocker. There is a test suite provided in the package, but it won't run correctly as dictd drops privileges to user nobody and won't be able to create/append log file _dictd.log in test/ directory. I'm not sure that's fixable. Please consider using install -p for install to preserve timestamps of installed files. Review: OK source files match upstream: 1b316bf797ff239eb87110c18cd7d5d9 dictd-1.11.0.tar.gz d1883d09f65179a3b6aa16579cb5a7e9 libmaa-1.1.0.tar.gz OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK summary is OK. OK description is OK. OK dist tag is not present. OK build root is OK. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible. OK license text included in package. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). OK package installs properly. OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires are sane: config(dictd) = 1.11.0-2 dictd = 1.11.0-2 dictd(x86-64) = 1.11.0-2 = /bin/sh chkconfig config(dictd) = 1.11.0-2 initscripts libc.so.6()(64bit) libdbi.so.0()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) N/A %check is not present. Provided test suite won't correctly run N/A no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK scriptlets present look OK OK initscript looks OK. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no static libraries. OK no libtool .la files. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review