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=491578 Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-05-28 10:03:02 EDT --- Fedora review RasmusDSP-0.1-1.20090321cvs.fc10.src.rpm 2009-05-28 $ rpmlint *.rpm RasmusDSP.spec RasmusDSP-editor.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. * OK ? needs attention * rpmlint output is OK * package is named according to the guidelines * spec file is named after the package * package is licensed under a Fedora approved license (BSD) * package license matches license statements in the sources * no license file present in sources * spec file is written in legible English * sources matches upstream * package builds in mock (Fedora 10) ? jack-audio-connection-kit-devel - is it needed as a BuildRequires? "grep -lr jack RasmusDSP" does not return any matches * package owns the directories it creates * no duplicate files * permissions are sane and %files has %defattr * %clean clears buildroot * spec file uses macros consistently * contains code, not content * subpackages requires main with fully qualified version * desktop files are installed using desktop-file-install * %install clears buildroot * installed filenames are UTF-8 * icon cache handling according to (draft) guidelines -- 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