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=554599 Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-12 15:41:47 EST --- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (LGPLv2+) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 710474ff3dfd9da223acf05af03e87a3 libxfce4ui-4.7.1.tar.bz2 710474ff3dfd9da223acf05af03e87a3 libxfce4ui-4.7.1.tar.bz2.orig See below - BuildRequires correct OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun OK - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig OK - .so files in -devel subpackage. OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - .la files are removed. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package obey's FHS standard (except for 2 exceptions) See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have sane scriptlets. OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version OK - Should not use file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin Issues: 1. Should we build gtk-doc? checking whether to build gtk-doc documentation... no (and yet it builds them anyhow) Also I see: configure: WARNING: unrecognized options: --enable-xinerama 2. rpmlint says: All these are bogus and can be ignored: libxfce4ui.src: W: spelling-error-in-summary en_US Xfce libxfce4ui.src: W: spelling-error-in-description en_US Libxfce libxfce4ui.src: W: spelling-error-in-description en_US ui libxfce4ui.src: W: spelling-error-in-description en_US Xfce libxfce4ui.x86_64: W: spelling-error-in-summary en_US Xfce libxfce4ui.x86_64: W: spelling-error-in-description en_US Libxfce libxfce4ui.x86_64: W: spelling-error-in-description en_US ui libxfce4ui.x86_64: W: spelling-error-in-description en_US Xfce libxfce4ui-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error-in-summary en_US libxfce libxfce4ui-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error-in-summary en_US ui libxfce4ui-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error-in-description en_US libxfce libxfce4ui-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error-in-description en_US ui libxfce4ui-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error-in-summary en_US libxfce libxfce4ui-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error-in-summary en_US ui libxfce4ui-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error-in-description en_US libxfce libxfce4ui-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error-in-description en_US ui Fix this: libxfce4ui.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.0-1 ['4.7.1-1.fc13', '4.7.1-1'] Might bug upstream about this one: libxfce4ui.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libxfce4ui-1.so.0.0.0 exit@xxxxxxxxxxx Those are all minor and you can fix them before you import. This package is APPROVED. I'd be happy to comaintain with you. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review