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=515752 --- Comment #8 from LINBIT <partner@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-30 20:50:51 EDT --- Packaging Guidelines: - Naming: OK - Version and Release: OK (see comment #7 for a remark on the release tag) - Legal/Licensing: OK, more comments to follow. - No inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries: OK (package includes no prebuilt binaries, exceptions N/A) - Spec Legibility: OK. - Writing a package from scratch: OK - Modifying an existing package: N/A - Architecture Support: N/A (package does not build architecture specific object code) - Filesystem Layout: OK (package follows FHS) - Rpmlint Errors: N/A (rpmlint reports no errors or warnings) - Changelogs: OK (spec uses recommended changelog format) - Tags: OK (package does not use Packager, Vendor, Copyright, or PreReq; Summary has recommended format -- for Source, another comment to follow) - BuildRoot: OK (uses one of the recommended formats, albeit not the top-listed one) - Prepping BuildRoot For %install: OK - %clean: OK - Requires: OK. See follow-up comment about requiring python explicitly, not just transitively via pytz - BuildRequires: OK. See follow-up comment for discussion of superfluous build dependency on python-devel. - Summary and description: OK. - Trademarks in Summary or Description: OK. - Encoding: OK, all filenames in US-ASCII. - Documentation: OK, package contains all documentation available upstream. - Compiler flags: N/A - Debuginfo packages: N/A - Devel Packages: N/A - Pkgconfig Files: N/A - Requiring Base Package: N/A - Shared Libraries: N/A -- 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