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=492946 Alexander Kurtakov <akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Alexander Kurtakov <akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-03 04:56:01 EDT --- Formal review: # OK: rpmlint gives no warnings/errors # OK: named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . # OK: The spec file match the base package %{name} # OK: EPL # OK: Every subpackage has it's own license shipping with it and included in %doc. # OK: The spec file must be written in American English. # OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. # OK: Fetch script shipped in the srpm. # OK: Builds fine. # OK: All BuildRequires and Requires are fine # OK: Owns all folders. # OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. # OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. # OK: Each package must have a %clean section # OK: Each package must consistently use macros. # OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. # OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. # OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. Package is good to go. Mat, just FYI, If this package is going to be available only F-11+, you can remove -a "-DjavacTarget=1.5 -DjavacSource=1.5" parts. This is added automatically from pdebuild script when needed in F-11. -- 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