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=467414 Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-06 15:14:29 EDT --- Review done on: http://homes.merjis.com/~rich/mingw/fedora-rawhide/src/SRPMS/mingw32-gnutls-2.6.3-5.fc11.src.rpm You should be sure to update this to 2.6.4 before you commit to rawhide. == REVIEW == Good: - rpmlint checks return nothing - package meets naming guidelines - package meets MinGW packaging guidelines - same patch and configure opts as normal package - license (GPLv3+ and LGPLv2+) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - modified tarball okay - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - locales handled properly - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file It feels odd for these packages to not have proper -devel packages, but I suppose that is just how MinGW is. 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