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=598860 --- Comment #19 from Nikos Roussos <nikos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2012-03-06 07:50:54 EST --- It seems ok. Here is the review +: OK -: must be fixed =: should be fixed (at your discretion) ?: Question or clarification needed N: not applicable MUST: [+] rpmlint output: shown in comment: none [+] follows package naming guidelines [+] spec file base name matches package name [+] package meets the packaging guidelines [+] package uses a Fedora approved license: ASL 2.0 [+] license field matches the actual license. [-] license file is included in %doc Please include LICENSE on %doc (also README) [+] spec file is in American English [+] spec file is legible [+] sources match upstream: md5sum matches [+] package builds on at least one primary arch: Tested F16 x86_64 [N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch [+] all build requirements in BuildRequires [N] spec file handles locales properly [N] ldconfig in %post and %postun [+] no bundled copies of system libraries [+] 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 [N] header files in -devel [N] static libraries in -static [N] .so in -devel [N] -devel requires main package [+] package contains no libtool archives [N] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install/validate [+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages [+] all filenames in UTF-8 SHOULD: [N] query upstream for license text [=] description and summary contains available translations [+] package builds in mock [=] package builds on all supported arches: Tested x86_64 [+] package functions as described: [N] sane scriptlets [N] subpackages require the main package [N] placement of pkgconfig files [+] file dependencies versus package dependencies [=] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts Have you considered adding man pages or are the same as httpd package? -- 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