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=491618 --- Comment #3 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-28 09:23:08 EDT --- Fedora review mingw32-libsqlite3x-20071018-6.fc11.src.rpm 2009-04-28 * 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 * License is MIT, which is Fedora approved * The license is the same as the corresponding native package ! How was it determined that the native's package license should be MIT? * There is no License file in the source tarfile (though some license statements are in the README file which is packaged). * The spec file is written in legible English * Source matches upstream f5015c83030236205aec1494b13ee334 libsqlite3x-2007.10.18.tar.gz f5015c83030236205aec1494b13ee334 SRPM/libsqlite3x-2007.10.18.tar.gz * 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