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=512020 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> 2009-08-05 16:51:47 EDT --- Could you perhaps expand OSC to "Open Sound Control" in your description? It would have saved me having to look it up. It's not a big deal, but there's plenty of space. What's the commented line in %prep about? That C file is compiled as part of the build; is it needed? The comment should probably be removed if there's no point to it. Since you seem to prefer %{buildroot} over $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, you might also want to use %{optflags} instead of $RPM_OPT_FLAGS although there's no requirement that you do so. I don't see any blockers. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 2ab48f50761d472eaa52fcbcb90958d9b7f3797a74092d021b16c8377bac4d2c pyliblo-0.7.2.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 (but could use some acronym expansion). * 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: liblo.so()(64bit) pyliblo = 0.7.2-1.fc12 pyliblo(x86-64) = 0.7.2-1.fc12 = /usr/bin/python liblo.so.0()(64bit) libpython2.6.so.1.0()(64bit) python(abi) = 2.6 * shared libraries aren't added to the regular linker search paths. * 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 -- 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