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=477870 --- Comment #14 from Andrew Overholt <overholt@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-03 11:02:35 EDT --- As for the FIX rpmlint shows no warnings The only one is this: eclipse-emf.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided eclipse-emf-standalone I think we need a Provide there as well (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ProvidesObsoletes) OK package named correctly OK spec file named correctly OK meets the Packaging Guidelines (except for above) OK license is correct, approved and in %doc OK license field in the package spec file matches the actual license OK shell script for fetching sources is included OK package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture (I tested x86_64 but it's noarch ...) OK md5sum of my fetched tarball doesn't match yours but that's just timestamps; diff -r gives no output OK owns all directories OK doesn't contain any duplicate files OK permissions are correctly set OK clean section present OK uses macros consistently OK package contains code OK no large documentation files OK if a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. OK packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK %install MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} OK all filenames must be valid UTF-8 -- 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