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=476310 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-10 00:28:03 EDT --- This one builds cleanly and rpmlint is quiet. Not sure why I'm the first person to look at it. Could the %description perhaps grow some description of what "iFP" is? It's not a big deal, but it would have been nice to not have had to look it up. I haven't the hardware to test this, but nobody else with hardware has shown up to review it, so.... * source files match upstream. sha256sum: df283d037ee206ede1de7e058022a7cd13d55c4d935323c3ae3af923b39f8ff3 pyifp-0.2.2.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. X description could use a bit of elucidation. * 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 is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: _ifp_core.so()(64bit) _usb_core.so()(64bit) pyifp = 0.2.2-1.fc11 pyifp(x86-64) = 0.2.2-1.fc11 = /usr/bin/python libifp.so.4()(64bit) libpython2.6.so.1.0()(64bit) libusb-0.1.so.4()(64bit) python(abi) = 2.6 * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * 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 * no scriptlets present. * 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 -- 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