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=492969 Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-10 13:14:33 EDT --- (I put the new lv2core SRPM from koji first in by mock chain build.) Fedora review lv2dynparam-2-1.fc10.src.rpm 2009-04-09 * OK ! Needs attention * rpmlint output - OK $ rpmlint *.rpm lv2dynparam.spec lv2dynparam-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. * Package is named according to guidelines * The spec file is named after the package * Package is licensed using a Fedora approved license (GPLv2) * The package license matches the license as stated in the sources * The license file in the sources (COPYING) is included in the package * The specfile is written in legible English * Sources matches upstream - and is the latest released version 708a7ce7e6604af2a58f521e343509d5 lv2dynparam1-2.tar.bz2 708a7ce7e6604af2a58f521e343509d5 SRPM/lv2dynparam1-2.tar.bz2 * Package builds in mock (Fedora 10) * BuildRequires are sane * Package calls ldconfig as appropriate * Package owns directories it creates * No double listed files * File permissions are sane and %files section has %defattr * %clean clear buildroot * The specfile uses macros consistently * Package contains code * %doc is not essential for running * headers are in -devel * No static libraries * -devel Requires: pkgconfig * .so files are in devel * -devel requires main with fully qualified version * No .la files * Package does not own other's directories * %install clears buildroot * Installed file names are valid UTF-8 Package 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