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=226102 --- Comment #1 from Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-12-01 09:09:40 EDT --- Review follows: NO source files match upstream. - source URL gives 404 YES package meets naming and versioning guidelines. YES specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. YES dist tag is present. YES build root is correct. (no build root specified) NO license field matches the actual license. - the actual license seems to be LGPLv2, under LGPLv2+ is licensed only baudboy.h YES license is open source-compatible. NO License text included in package. NO latest version is being packaged. - is there a reason for not packaging 1.0.3? YES BuildRequires are proper. YES compiler flags are appropriate. YES %clean is present. YES package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64). YES debuginfo package looks complete. YES rpmlint output is sane. lockdev.x86_64: E: setgid-binary /usr/sbin/lockdev lock 02711 lockdev.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/lockdev 02711 lockdev.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/lockdev 02711 These are ok. YES final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. YES shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths, ldconfig called in %post and %postun. YES owns the directories it creates. YES doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. YES no duplicates in %files. YES file permissions are appropriate. YES code, not content. YES documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. - documentation should include some files like AUTHORS, ChangeLog YES %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. YES headers packaged in -devel subpackage YES no pkgconfig files. YES no libtool .la droppings. YES not a GUI app. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review