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=676159 Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich <krege@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich <krege@xxxxxxx> 2011-02-20 06:36:56 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) > Looks as if you built without the libscs-devel installed. Did you use the > latest one posted, this contains the BR. I built with system libscs. And on the next try it works. Think, I done something wrong previuos time. Ok now. No blockers any more. ======== Review =========================== + rpmlint was run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. + The package was named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matchs the base package %{name}. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license LGPLv2+. + The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. + File, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package matchs the upstream source. + The package is successfully compiled and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + Binary RPM package calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. + Packages do not bundle copies of system libraries. + A package owns all directories that it creates. + A package do not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + Package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissable content. * No localization. * No large documentaion. + Everything included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application. + Header files are in a -devel package. * No static libraries. + Library files that end in .so (without suffix) are in a -devel package. + Devel package requires the base package in proper way. + Packages do NOT contain any .la libtool archives. * Not a GUI application. + Packages do not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. All good. I think, I could set review to "+" before getting "git done" for libscs. 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