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=488858 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-09 00:00:35 EDT --- Indeed, the only rpmlint complaints are those you mention, and they're all OK. I tried to test this but without a server to connect to there's not all that much you can do. This package leaves /etc/davfs2 and /etc/davfs2/certs unowned. A couple of extra %dir statements should fix this up. Really that's the only I see that needs fixing, so I'll go ahead and approve this and you can fix it up when you import. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: bb71b46dfd6b24885c263243cdf15de57d4798b6cee0b479324ea387f3694775 davfs2-1.3.3.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: config(davfs2) = 1.3.3-1.fc11 davfs2 = 1.3.3-1.fc11 davfs2(x86-64) = 1.3.3-1.fc11 = /bin/sh config(davfs2) = 1.3.3-1.fc11 libneon.so.27()(64bit) shadow-utils * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. X owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * scriptlets are OK (user/group creation). * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. APPROVED, just fix up the directory ownership issues. The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package reviews recently, please consider doing one. -- 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