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=509121 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-10 18:24:26 EDT --- Indeed, this is a simple package which build fine and elicits no complaints from rpmlint. I checked the tests; none of them seem to be runnable. It might be nice to add a comment about that. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 72cfe231feae7b860b9e00fb2d83e1cb54f0d38719267a4701818c4c8aa6e922 kaa-display-0.1.0.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 is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: _FBmodule.so()(64bit) _SDLmodule.so()(64bit) _X11module.so()(64bit) python-kaa-display = 0.1.0-1.fc12 python-kaa-display(x86-64) = 0.1.0-1.fc12 = libImlib2.so.1()(64bit) libSDL-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXcomposite.so.1()(64bit) libXext.so.6()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libpython2.6.so.1.0()(64bit) python(abi) = 2.6 * 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