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=467401 Adam Tkac <atkac@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #5 from Adam Tkac <atkac@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-27 10:46:19 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > Adam, will you take this review? yes, of course. Sorry for late response, I lost this review in my "working queue". Review: source files match upstream: YES package meets naming and versioning guidelines: YES specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently: YES dist tag is present: YES build root is correct: YES license field matches the actual license: YES license is open source-compatible. YES latest version is being packaged: YES BuildRequires are proper: YES compiler flags are appropriate: YES %clean is present: YES package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64): YES rpmlint is silent: NO but errors are ok for mingw32 package final provides and requires look sane: NO owns the directories it creates: YES no duplicates in %files: YES file permissions are appropriate: YES code, not content: YES ----------------------------------------------------------- Currently I see one problem - win32 binaries are installed: /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/bin/cjpeg /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/bin/djpeg /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/bin/jpegtran /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/bin/rdjpgcom /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/bin/wrjpgcom Is here any reason to have them installed? -- 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