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=592388 --- Comment #4 from Aditya Patawari <adimania@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-05-15 15:35:19 EDT --- Informal Review +RPM Lint output vor.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US excelent -> excellent, excellence, excellency vor.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gameplay -> game play, game-play, nameplate vor.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US synthoid -> synthesized, synthetic, synthesis vor.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US thumpy -> thump, thumps, thump y 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. + Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + SPEC file is legible and properly named. + Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. + License Verified (GPLv2+). + License file included in package + Spec in American English + MD5 matched a4eb90351dc19413e82ac0bc5269bc42 + No System binaries Bundled. + Koji Build checked. + BuildRoot is fine :%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n). + BuildRequires verified. + Files and Files permissions are right. + %defattr present. + %doc section is fine. + Clean section is correct. + Package is code and has permissible content. + Package has no duplicate files in %files. + Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file + No need of separate devel, doc and static package. + File names are valid UTF-8 Status: Package seems all right to me. Has to be approved by a package maintainer. -- 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