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=497640 Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx> 2009-04-30 15:35:16 EDT --- formal review is here, see the notes below: OK source files match upstream: 0d47a2b72b160bc7c94a0cab4d8e96702aee3e61 RedCloth-4.1.9.gem OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible (MIT). License text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64). ?? debuginfo package looks complete. OK rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK* file permissions are appropriate. OK no scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. - the issue with the source files missing in debuginfo package opened on fedora-packaging, running strip on the library is IMHO wrong - the shared library should have 0755 permissions instead of 0775 Both issues are not blockers, but should be resolved before importing the package. This package is 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