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=538172 Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-12-11 16:44:43 EDT --- Fedora review - pyactivemq - 2009-12-11 rpmlint: $ rpmlint pyactivemq/*.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. + Package name follows naming guidelines + Specfile is named accordingly + The package's license "ASL 2.0" is a Fedora approved license + The package's license matches the license of the sources + The LICENSE.txt file is included as %doc + Specfile is written in legible English + Package builds in mock (Fedora 12) + Source matches upstream: $ md5sum pyactivemq-0.1.0.tar.gz pysrc/pyactivemq-0.1.0.tar.gz 2ba32ab034c91a6fc6d0deb581d6ea27 pyactivemq-0.1.0.tar.gz 2ba32ab034c91a6fc6d0deb581d6ea27 pysrc/pyactivemq-0.1.0.tar.gz + Build dependencies are sufficient + No bundled system libraries + Package owns directories it creates + No duplicate files + File permissions are sane and %files have %defattr + %clean clears buildroot + Specfile uses macros consistently + %doc is not runtime essential + Package does not own others' files + %install clears buildroot + Installed filenames are UTF-8 Package 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