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: dvdauthor - Command line DVD authoring tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219103 rpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From rpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-01-07 08:58 EST ------- 1. package meets naming and packaging guidelines. 2. specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. 3. dist tag is present. 4. build root is correct. %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) 5. license field matches the actual license. 6. license is open source-compatible (GPL). License text included in package. 7. source files match upstream: d2c45879e4cfb95d410bf603af891e07 dvdauthor-0.6.11.tar.gz 8. latest version is being packaged. 9. BuildRequires are proper. 10. package builds in mock (x86_64 devel). 11. rpmlint is silent. 12. final provides and requires are sane: dvdauthor = 0.6.11-8.fc7 = /bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libdvdread.so.3()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libfribidi.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpng12.so.0()(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) 13. no shared libraries are present. 14. package is not relocatable. 15. owns the directories it creates. 16. doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. 17. no duplicates in %files. 18. file permissions are appropriate. 19. %clean is present. 20. %check is not present and no testsuite. 21. no scriptlets present. 22. code, not content. 23. documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. 24. %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. 25. no headers. 26. no pkgconfig files. 27. no libtool .la droppings. 28. not a GUI app. 29. not a web app. APPROVED. -- 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