Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libextractor -- Simple library for keyword extraction https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214087 mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-12-28 12:52 EST ------- Well, this package is okay. This package (libextractor) is APPROVED by me -------------------------------------------------- COMMENTS (none of the following two are blockers) - I recommend to add your name to README.fedora - My opinion is -------------------------------------------------- /etc/alternatives/libextractor_thumbnail /usr/lib/libextractor/plugins/ibextractor-thumbnail.so -------------------------------------------------- should be owned as ghost files by -thumbnailgtk and -thumbnailqt packages, however, currently no other package own /etc/alternatives/* files nor alternate link files. How do you think?? NOTES A. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines = Naming okay = Legal okay - GPL (OSI approved) - Documentation included - Actually coincide with source code license - No patent-related issue = Filesystem Layout okay = rpmlint -- not silent, however all can be ignored = Changelog proper = Tag okay = Buildroot okay (although not a format of "recommended") = Requires - not needed but for ones automatically checked by rpmbuild = BuildRequires - mockbuild okay = Summary/Description okay = Documentation - all files which should be included are all included actually = Mockbuild says Fedora specific compilation flags are passed = No static archives/la files = No use of local copy of system libraries = rpm -qa libextractor\* | xargs rpm -ql | xargs /usr/lib/rpm/check-rpaths-worker does not complain = No config file = This is not GUI package = Macros are correctly handled = No mixed usage of %buildroot <-> $RPM_BUILD_ROOT = %makeinstall not used = proper %find_lang usage = Timestamps okay = Parallel make intentionally disabled = Scriptlets: ... okay - ldconfig - alternatives = Relocation disabled = Ownership okay = Not web apps, /var/www is not used B. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines = Source download okay = md5sum coincide = No duplicate files description = %clean section okay = -doc subpackage not needed = -devel package okay = Requires ... as discussed = BuildRequires okay -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review