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=492950 Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-23 10:10:35 EDT --- Fedora review lv2-vocoder-plugins-1-1.fc10.src.rpm 2009-04-23 rpmlint output: 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. * Package is named according to guidelines * The spec file is named after the package * The package is licensed as GPLv2, which is a Fedora approved license * The license matches the stated license in the sources * The license file in the sources (gpl.txt) is installed as %doc * The specfile is written in legible English * Sources matches upstream and is the latest version 8c0096978e9c58a252f247e1f7f7ed63 lv2vocoder-1.tar.bz2 8c0096978e9c58a252f247e1f7f7ed63 SRPM/lv2vocoder-1.tar.bz2 * Package compiles in mock (Fedora 10) * BuildRequires are sane * No shared libraries in default library path * Package owns or depend on packages that own its directories * No duplicate files * Permission are sane and %files has %defattr * %clean clears buildroot * Contains code * Uses macros consistently * %doc is not essential at runtime * Package does not own other's directories * %install clears buildroot * installed filenames 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