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=480222 --- Comment #1 from Lucian Langa <cooly@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-26 13:57:34 EDT --- Review: OK source files match upstream: 7ccb4c831f9a33c14f6c6e599e1ac102 nullmodem-0.0.5.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 present. OK build root is OK. NOT 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. final provides and requires are sane: nullmodem = 0.0.5-1.fc11 nullmodem(x86-64) = 0.0.5-1.fc11 = libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libutil.so.1()(64bit) OK %check is not present; no test suite upstream. OK 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 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. License tag should be GPL+ -- 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