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=523967 Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx> 2009-09-18 11:14:06 EDT --- formal review is here: OK source files match upstream: d1cde4cbb618180f9ae0e77c56a1520b8ad61c9a ldapvi-1.7.tar.gz OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible (GPLv2+). License text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64). OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK no scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. This package is 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