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=496525 Alexander Kurtakov <akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Alexander Kurtakov <akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-05-28 07:58:54 EDT --- Review: OK; rpmlint shows a number of warnings. But the packager already explained them and I agree that they are not a problem. OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK: License is included in %doc. OK: The spec file must be written in American English. OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK: Script for fetching sources is included. OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. OK: BuildRequires are good OK: No duplicate entries in %files listings. OK: Permissions on files are good OK: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK: Each package must consistently use macros. OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. Javadoc are in separate package. OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. OK: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. 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