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=625480 Jakub Hrozek <jhrozek@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Jakub Hrozek <jhrozek@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-08-26 06:27:57 EDT --- RPMLint output: clean, 0 errors, 0 warnings. The package looks good and is APPROVED. Details follow: The review itself: [OK] - The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [OK] - The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [OK] - The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [OK] - The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [OK] - The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . [OK] - If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for th [OK] - The spec file must be written in American English. [OK] - The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [OK] - The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. - OK, c94a13e5f1943dcfdc67684b06e8eea1 [OK] - The package MUST successfully compile and build [OK] - All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires - The two above were tested with koji scratch build [OK] - Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must cal [OK] - Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries [OK] - A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does creat [OK] - A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [OK] - Each package must consistently use macros. [OK] - The package must contain code, or permissable content. [OK] - Header files must be in a -devel package. [OK] - If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel packa [OK] - In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency [OK] - Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [OK] - Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages [OK] - All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [OK] - Permissions on files must be set properly -- 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