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: gnomescan - Gnome Scanner Utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222043 panemade@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From panemade@xxxxxxxxx 2007-01-11 02:25 EST ------- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and RPMS. + source files match upstream. 7c481bb5ce112ebf5889bc4cd63f5836 gnomescan-0.4.0.2.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. + %doc is small; no -doc subpackage required. + %doc does not affect runtime. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code Not contents. + no static libraries present. + no gnomescan.pc and gnomescanui.pc files present. + -devel subpackage exists + included %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig + no .la files. + translations are available + Dose owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + no scriptlets used. + Desktop files are handled correctly in spec. + file permissions are appropriate. + gui 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