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=596746 Terje Røsten <terjeros@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #25 from Terje Røsten <terjeros@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-06-03 09:04:07 EDT --- Thanks, formal review: ok rpmlint, only harmless spelling warnings ok naming of package and spec ok spec file include doc/ROADMAP.txt and doc/overview.txt? ok license approved and tag ok. GPL2+, all files seems to have license header ok license in %doc ok correct language ok sha1sum on sources and ok url sha1sum bzr-explorer-1.0.2.tar.gz* ad57c9cbcde2004af76ed29b520ddd075c2d15fe bzr-explorer-1.0.2.tar.gz ad57c9cbcde2004af76ed29b520ddd075c2d15fe bzr-explorer-1.0.2.tar.gz.orig ok koji build with correct buildreq http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2227301 ok excludearch ok locale files - ldconfig ok no bundling ok owns, dirs and perms and only once ok macros ok code or content - large docs ok %doc not affect the runtime - headers|static in devel|static - .so in devel - devel dep on base - no .la|.a file ok gui with desktop file ok own just not owned ok utf-8 file names Thanks for working with upstream and fixing the issues that was discovered. The package bzr-explorer is 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