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=488175 --- Comment #10 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-06 01:56:22 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide i586). koji build => http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1279006 + rpmlint output for SRPM and for RPM is ibus-table-extraphrase.src:54: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/ibus-table-extraphrase.pc ==> is this really needed? + source files match upstream url 2dd3e5cf76c8fa36b17a6ade737e0801 ibus-table-extraphrase-1.1.0.20090327.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + BuildRequires are proper. + defattr usage is correct. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlet used. + file permissions are appropriate. + Not a GUI App. Suggestions: 1) Add Changelog in upstream tarball. When you add it then you can add this Changelog file as %doc 2) can you check if ibus-table-extraphrase.pc is really needed? -- 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