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=528847 --- Comment #12 from Matt Domsch <matt_domsch@xxxxxxxx> 2009-10-16 11:20:05 EDT --- For the record Name: OK spec name: OK packaging guidelines: ok license: ok license field: ok license text file: not present in upstream. ok. english spec: ok legible spec: ok sources match upstream: ok builds on x86_64: ok doesn't build on some arch: unknown, nothing indicated. ok. buildrequires: ok locales: not used, ok. shared libs: none. ok no system libs: ok relocatable: no. ok. own dirs: ok no duplicate files: ok file perms: ok clean section: ok consistent use of macros: ok code not content: code. ok large docs: none. ok. runtime docs: no. ok. header files: none. ok static libs: none. ok pkgconfig: none. ok devel versioned dep: none. ok. no .la: none. ok desktop file: none. ok dir ownership: ok install rm-rf: ok utf8: ok SHOULDs: license: noted above translated description: not available builds in mock: didn't try; builds locally, with no special BRs. builds for target arches: didn't try tested: not done during review scriptlets sane: none, ok. subpackages: none, ok pkgconfig: none, ok file deps: none, ok -- 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