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=491614 --- Comment #5 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-19 13:22:31 EDT --- Fedora review mingw32-libglademm24-2.6.7-4.fc11.src.rpm 2008-04-19 * OK ! needs attention * rpmlint output Only expected Errors/Warnings from a mingw package * Package is named according to Fedora mingw packaging guidelines * Spec file is named as the package * Package follows the Fedora mingw packaging guidelines * The stated license (LGPLv2+) is a Fedora approved license * The stated license is the same as the one for the corresponding Fedora package * The package contains the license file (COPYING) * The spec file is written in legible English * Sources matches upstream f9ca5b67f6c551ea98790ab5f21c19d0 libglademm-2.6.7.tar.bz2 f9ca5b67f6c551ea98790ab5f21c19d0 SRPM/libglademm-2.6.7.tar.bz2 * According to guidelines the version should match the version of the corresponding Fedora package - which it does. * Package builds in mock (Fedora 10) ! The package contains documentation already present in the native Fedora package * BuildRequires look sane ! But is there a reason for having the "BuildArch: noarch" listed in the middle of the list of Thr BuildRequies? * Owns the directories it creates * No duplicate files * %files has %defattr * %clean clears %buildroot * Specfile uses macros consistently * Package does not own other's directories * %install clears %buildroot * Installed filenames are valid UTF8 -- 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