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=463808 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-10 15:43:15 EDT --- All I get from rpmlint is robotfindskitten.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot A game/zen simulation. You are robot. Your job is to find kitten. which is technically true, but I don't think it makes much sense to elide just the final period here. robotfindskitten.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 1) I don't particularly care about this; fix it if you like. I installed and ran the resulting package and it seemed to work. I'm not sure what the point is, but perhaps there's not supposed to be one. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 08c8a826c3cf90a7f3dc1d42b087425af661971585f125b9bedca2bcc2a11852 robotfindskitten-1.7320508.406.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: robotfindskitten = 1.7320508.406-2.fc12 robotfindskitten(x86-64) = 1.7320508.406-2.fc12 = /bin/sh info libncurses.so.5()(64bit) libtinfo.so.5()(64bit) * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. APPROVED The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package reviews recently, please consider doing one. -- 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