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=707819 --- Comment #9 from Richard Shaw <hobbes1069@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-06-06 18:18:20 EDT --- Ok, I added a category since I'm still learning here and I used it on all of the licensing stuff until that gets straightened out. +: OK -: must be fixed =: should be fixed (at your discretion) ?: Question or clairification needed N: not applicable MUST: [=] rpmlint output: shown in comment: shared-lib-calls-exit (only upstream can fix) [+] follows package naming guidelines [+] spec file base name matches package name [=] package meets the packaging guidelines [?] package uses a Fedora approved license: Elevated to Fedora Legal [?] license field matches the actual license [+] license file is included in %doc [+] spec file is in American English [+] spec file is legible [+] sources match upstream: md5sum "37c15a3c6c3f13e31262f65ac4364b5e" for both. [+] package builds on at least one primary arch (F14 x86_64 & i686, F15 x86_64) [N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch [+] all build requirements in BuildRequires [+] spec file handles locales properly [+] ldconfig in %post and %postun [+] no bundled copies of system libraries [N] no relocatable packages [+] package owns all directories that it creates [+] no files listed twice in %files [+] proper permissions on files [+] consistent use of macros [+] code or permissible content [N] large documentation in -doc [+] no runtime dependencies in %doc [+] header files in -devel [N] static libraries in -static [+] .so in -devel [+] -devel requires main package [+] package contains no libtool archives [N] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install [+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages [+] all filenames in UTF-8 SHOULD: [?] query upstream for license text [N] description and summary contains available translations [+] package builds in mock [+] package builds on all supported arches [+] package functions as described: Ran binary and help was displayed [+] sane scriptlets [+] subpackages require the main package [N] placement of pkgconfig files [N] file dependencies versus package dependencies [+] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts -- 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