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=567109 Thomas Janssen <thomasj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Thomas Janssen <thomasj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-02-23 14:38:00 EST --- Ok, this is a re-review request due to upstream name change. 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 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: 48b97308fc8bb949f4ac34cbeaf1dbec libunicap-0.9.8.tar.gz NN - Package needs ExcludeArch OK - 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 %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) OK - Package is code or permissible content. NN - Doc subpackage needed/used. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun OK - .so files in -devel subpackage. OK - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - .la files are removed. NN - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file 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. XX - No rpmlint output. Some warnings about spelling errors. Can be ignored. One warning about obsolete-not-provided unicap-devel Due to the nature of that rename and split into 3 packages ignorable. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs (tested with rawhide) 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 Issues: None. I have checked for obsoletes and provides. I had a chat in IRC with the maintainer and this seems to be the sane way. 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review