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=691189 Iain Arnell <iarnell@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Iain Arnell <iarnell@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-05-09 01:56:30 EDT --- + source files match upstream. ba268e66b59b100edb9da1cee064c258 wmbinclock-0.5.tar.bz2 + 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. + license field matches the actual license. GPLv2+ + license is open source-compatible. + license text included. + latest version is being packaged. + BuildRequires are proper. + compiler flags are appropriate. + package builds in mock (locally) + package installs properly. + rpmlint has no meaningful complaints: wmbinclock.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Dockapp -> Dock app, Dock-app, Paddock wmbinclock.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found de wmbinclock.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Dockapp -> Dock app, Dock-app, Paddock wmbinclock.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Dockapp -> Dock app, Dock-app, Paddock wmbinclock.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Dockapp -> Dock app, Dock-app, Paddock wmbinclock.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/wmbinclock-0.5/COPYING wmbinclock.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wmBinClock wmbinclock-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/wmbinclock-0.5/wmBinClock_mask.xbm wmbinclock-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/wmbinclock-0.5/wmBinClock.c 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 5 warnings. + final provides and requires are sane + 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. + documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. + %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. Again, you should advise upstream of the fsf address change and ask them to update their code. Would also be nice to get a man page too. Otherwise, all appears okay. 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