Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nickle https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184011 gemi@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From gemi@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-11-12 17:06 EST ------- * source files match upstream: ffc7b03a830e64ec0547777330ae00b8 nickle-2.54.tar.gz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently * dist tag is present * build root is correct * license field matches the actual license * license is open source-compatible, license text included in package * latest version is being packaged * BuildRequires are proper * compiler flags are appropriate * %clean is present * package builds in mock (FC-6, i386) * package installs properly * rpmlint is silent (no doc for -devel package, which is ok) * final provides and requires are sane * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths * owns the directories it creates * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't * no duplicates in %files * file permissions are appropriate * no scriptlets present * code, not content * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package * header files in -devel package * no pkgconfig files * no libtool .la droppings APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review