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=638906 Nathaniel McCallum <nathaniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |nathaniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |nathaniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Nathaniel McCallum <nathaniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-10-04 09:55:24 EDT --- [ OK ] specfiles match: 67931592d06373389253e810914e8939 [ OK ] source files match upstream: 209792fa762bafdfef1c475b2ffb577c [ OK ] package meets naming and versioning guidelines. [ OK ] spec is properly named, cleanly written, and uses macros consistently. [ OK ] dist tag is present. [ OK ] build root is correct. [ OK ] license field matches the actual license. [ OK ] license is open source-compatible. [ FAIL ] license text included in package. [ OK ] latest version is being packaged. [ OK ] BuildRequires are proper. [ OK ] compiler flags are appropriate. [ OK ] %clean is present. [ OK ] package builds in mock. [ OK ] package installs properly. [ OK ] debuginfo package looks complete. [ FAIL ] rpmlint is silent. 1. erlang-gen_leader.ppc: E: no-binary 2. erlang-gen_leader.ppc: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 3. erlang-gen_leader.ppc: W: no-documentation #1 and #2 are ok. #3 could easily be solved by packaging a copy of the license. [ OK ] final provides and requires are sane [ NA ] %check is present and all tests pass: [ OK ] no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. [ ?? ] owns the directories it creates. What owns /usr/lib64/erlang and /usr/lib64/erlang/lib? Is this package in the requires? [ OK ] doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. [ OK ] no duplicates in %files. [ OK ] file permissions are appropriate. [ OK ] scriptlets match those on ScriptletSnippets page. [ OK ] code, not content. [ OK ] documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. [ OK ] %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. [ OK ] no headers. [ OK ] no pkgconfig files. [ OK ] no libtool .la droppings. [ NA ] desktop files valid and installed properly. Add the license text as a doc and clarify my understanding of the directories and then we will be good to go. -- 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