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=468229 Sergio Pascual <sergio.pasra@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review?, |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(sergio.pasra@gmai | |l.com) | --- Comment #7 from Sergio Pascual <sergio.pasra@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-05-24 13:05:55 EDT --- + source files match upstream: + package meets naming and versioning guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license field matches the actual license. + license is open source-compatible. + latest version is being packaged. + BuildRequires are proper. + compiler flags are appropriate. + %clean is present. + package installs properly + rpmlint is silent. + no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. + owns the directories it creates. + doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + no scriptlets present. + code, not content. + documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. + %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. + no headers. + no pkgconfig files. + no libtool .la droppings. If you plan to build this package in EL-4, please reread the python guidelines. Before EL-5 you have to write the python-abi dependency explicitly. Furthermore, .pyo files have to be created by hand. 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