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=549709 --- Comment #6 from Matthias Clasen <mclasen@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-12-22 18:06:31 EDT --- package name: ok spec name: ok packaging guidelines: ok license: ok license field: ok license file: ok spec language: ok spec readable: yes upstream source: ok buildable: yes ExcludeArch: none, ok BuildRequires: ok locale handling: none, ok ldconfig: ok system libraries: none, ok relocatable: no, ok directory ownership: ok duplicate files: ok file permissions: ok %clean: ok macro use: ok permissable content: ok large docs: none, ok %doc content: ok header files: ok static libs: none, ok pc files: ok shared libs: ok devel deps: ok libtool archives: none, ok gui apps: no, ok file ownership: ok, but we should figure out how to handle the conflict with the old gnome-keyring package %install: ok utf8 filenames: ok Summary: all looks good, we just need to figure out the conflict with the old gnome-keyring package. Probably add something like Conflicts: gnome-keyring < 2.29.4 Conflicts: gnome-keyring-devel < 2.29.4 -- 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