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=773313 Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx> 2012-01-19 10:35:02 EST --- formal review is here, see the notes explaining OK* and BAD statuses below: OK source files match upstream: b81560f504917137bfa6927bb55c7eed02166fa3 ziparchive_src.zip OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible (GPLv2+). License text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/i386). OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK* rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. OK shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths with correct scriptlet OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK correct scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK headers in devel subpackage OK pkgconfig files in devel subpackage OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. - description needs improvement and I'm almost sure I made one based on Jussi's comment, but can't find it now ... - rpmlint complains about incorrect FSF address, upstream will be informed The package is 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