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=438608 Michel Alexandre Salim <michel.sylvan@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #28 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel.sylvan@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-25 12:51:16 EDT --- ReviewTemplate PASSED • rpmlint: Clean, but no documentation. See licensing comments below • package name • spec file name • package guideline-compliant • license complies with guidelines: Yes • license field accurate • license file not deleted • spec in US English • spec legible • source matches upstream • builds under >= 1 archs, others excluded noarch • build dependencies complete • own all directories • no dupes in %files • permission • %clean RPM_BUILD_ROOT • macros used consistently • Package contains code • clean buildroot before install • filenames UTF-8 SHOULD • if license text missing, ask upstream to include it License file seems to come with the base elisa distribution. Could upstream be asked to ship this with the plugins tarball as well? • package build in mock on all architectures • package functioned as described: Works, tested with audio playback on F10/x86_64. Note that video playback locks up the machine, but that is probably an Elisa / Elisa-plugins-bad problem • scriplets are sane • other subpackages should require versioned base • require package not files 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