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=476359 Felix Kaechele <felix@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Felix Kaechele <felix@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-12-10 22:11:27 EDT --- Okay FINALLY here we go. Sorry for the long delay: [+] specfiles match: 1c0efc114948b59b30cc9d28cfd6113d8244c007dd38d8fb8bc2762f1ec0d5ad compiz-fusion-unsupported.spec 1c0efc114948b59b30cc9d28cfd6113d8244c007dd38d8fb8bc2762f1ec0d5ad ../../Downloads/compiz-fusion-unsupported.spec [+] source files match upstream: 943d1ad6a1e4a92a518087c4b5ba44e91c5e2b9bc254dbfcc4adefe3dc42157b compiz-plugins-unsupported-0.8.2.tar.bz2 943d1ad6a1e4a92a518087c4b5ba44e91c5e2b9bc254dbfcc4adefe3dc42157b ../SOURCES/compiz-plugins-unsupported-0.8.2.tar.bz2 [+] package meets naming and versioning guidelines. [+] spec is properly named, cleanly written, and uses macros consistently. [+] dist tag is present. [+] build root is correct. [+] license field matches the actual license. [+] license is open source-compatible. [+] license text included in package. [!] latest version is being packaged. Latest version that matches the version of compiz-fusion in Fedora is packaged. This is OK. [+] BuildRequires are proper. [+] compiler flags are appropriate. [+] %clean is present. [+] package builds in mock. [+] package installs properly. [+] debuginfo package looks complete. [!] rpmlint is silent. rpmlint has some warnings but these can be safely ignored. [+] final provides and requires are sane [N/A] %check is present and all tests pass: [+] no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. [+] owns the directories it creates. [+] doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. [+] no duplicates in %files. [+] file permissions are appropriate. [+] scriptlets match those on ScriptletSnippets page. [+] code, not content. [+] documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. [+] %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. [+] no headers. Are in -devel where they belong [+] no pkgconfig files. [+] no libtool .la droppings. [N/A] desktop files valid and installed properly. 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