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=473583 Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #24 from Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-05-28 09:06:13 EDT --- == Review == Good: - rpmlint checks return: wordnet.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libWN.so.3.0.0 exit@xxxxxxxxxxx [SAFE TO IGNORE] - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (MIT) OK, text in %doc (source code does not include licensing, just blanket attribution, please ask upstream to include per file licensing) - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream (aeb7887cb4935756cf77deb1ea86973dff0e32fb) - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file (tk application is just wish shell, does not meet requirements for desktop file inclusion) - devel package ok - no .la files - post/postun ldconfig ok - devel requires base package n-v-r APPROVED. Pick up the steps here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Get_Sponsored Also, please don't forget about wmfire (478744)! -- 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