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=542036 Iain Arnell <iarnell@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |iarnell@xxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |iarnell@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Iain Arnell <iarnell@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-09-04 02:35:47 EDT --- + source files match upstream. 41cde491517a5e7515da84f95bb4e9d7 fpdf16.tgz + package meets naming and versioning guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. + summary is OK. + description is OK. + dist tag is present. + build root is OK. + license field matches the actual license. MIT + license is open source-compatible. - license text included license.txt need to be in both main package and -doc sub-package + latest version is being packaged. + BuildRequires are proper. + compiler flags are appropriate. + %clean is present. + package builds in mock http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2446844 + package installs properly. + rpmlint has no serious complaints: php-fpdf.noarch: I: checking php-fpdf.noarch: I: checking-url http://www.fpdf.org (timeout 10 seconds) php-fpdf.noarch: W: no-documentation php-fpdf.src: I: checking php-fpdf.src: I: checking-url http://www.fpdf.org (timeout 10 seconds) php-fpdf.src: W: invalid-url Source0: fpdf16.tgz php-fpdf-doc.noarch: I: checking php-fpdf-doc.noarch: I: checking-url http://www.fpdf.org (timeout 10 seconds) 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. + final provides and requires are sane: php-fpdf = 1.6-3.fc15 = php-gd + 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 generically named files + code, not content. + %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. The only problem is due to a change in the guidelines since you prepared the package. You need to have license.txt as %doc in the main package as well as the doc sub-package. Add that one line to the spec and it's 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