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=659812 Jef Spaleta <jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Jef Spaleta <jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-12-06 19:10:13 EST --- APPROVED for rawhide (f15+) checksum of source url matches checksum of included source tarball. sha512sum: c94ad89a5afc980e50f8ab83784b052c3ba1c66fb2d2ddf4201d225c577be78422d3ae3f7bf66cbf47745abc7b2e1263b24a9cfa625f72e4c5b2a2c7769319d7 license tag agrees with project homepage licensing and copying file in upstream source tree. package and subpackage naming is good. local mock builds against 64bit rawhide succeed. F-13 and F-14 fail due to the gtk3 requirement. I get the same rpmlint warning messages and concur with the explanations given. The main binary package looks sane with regard to ownership and payload. The devel and gtk3-devel packages look sane with regard to ownership and payload tool subpackages look sane. rpm scriptlets look good for ldconfig for gtk2 and gtk3 library payloads. The only executable from the tools and gtk3-tools subpackages are located in libexecdir has correct permissions. No end-user executables that need a desktopfile. gtk2 and gtk3 subpackages install side by side with no conflicts -- 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