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=504471 --- Comment #8 from Michal Fojtik <mfojtik@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-08 10:38:40 EDT --- Fixed rev number in SRPM: SPEC: http://mifo.sk/rubygem-sinatra.spec SRPM: http://mifo.sk/rubygem-sinatra-0.10.1-1.fc12.src.rpm Review: # MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . OK # MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. OK # MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . MIT # MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK # MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. http://gems.rubyforge.org/gems # MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. OK # MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. No headers. # MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK # MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. OK -- 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