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=467405 Tim Lauridsen <tim.lauridsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #15 from Tim Lauridsen <tim.lauridsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-26 06:18:47 EDT --- MUST: * package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines mingw32-* * spec file name match base package * package meet Packaging Guidelines . * package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines * License field match the actual license. * available license(s) file(s) is included in %doc. * spec file is written in American English. * spec file is legible. * package compile on x86 * build dependencies is listed in BuildRequires * no locales * no shared libs * package not relocatable * package own all directories that it creates. * no duplicate files in the %files listing. * Permissions on files must be set properly. (%defattr(...) line) * %clean section present and contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) * package is consistently using macros * package contain code, or permissable content * no large doc * %doc does not affect runtime * no headers * no static libs * available pkgconfig(.pc) files 'Requires: pkgconfig' * no *.so.* libs * no -devel packages * not a GUI app. * no files or directories already owned by other packages. * %install begins with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) * filenames is valid UTF-8 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