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=526738 --- Comment #10 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> 2009-10-12 13:50:57 EDT --- rpmlint clean: $ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/py-radix-* \ SRPMS/py-radix-0.5-4.fc11.src.rpm \ SPECS/py-radix.spec 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. key: + okay - problem ? notchecked. Hi Matt, + rpmlint okay: 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. + Package name same as upstream tar ball. + Spec file called py-radix correctly. + License is BSD + advertising. + Spec file license correct. + License file is present and included. + Spec file is English and legible. + md5sum: URL and contained tar ball have same md5sum. $ md5sum py-radix-0.5.tar.gz ../SOURCES/py-radix-0.5.tar.gz 8c853ce312b769de627d958a1cd6e5a0 py-radix-0.5.tar.gz 8c853ce312b769de627d958a1cd6e5a0 ../SOURCES/py-radix-0.5.tar.gz + Builds fine mock x86_64 devel - Includes own copy of inet_top? + No static libs or .la files. + No devel packages. + %doc files are not needed at runtime. + Package owns its own directories or depends upon relavent packages. + All files are utf8. Just one question about inet_top.c This looks to be kind of standard and nothing special to this package Its not available as part of another package or anything? -- 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