Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: libpng https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226038 bdpepple@xxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|bdpepple@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |tgl@xxxxxxxxxx CC| |bdpepple@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From bdpepple@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-03 15:48 EST ------- Good: * Source URL in canonical. * Group Tag is from official list. * All paths begin with macros * All directories are owned by this or other packages Must Fix: * rpmlint errors: E: libpng useless-explicit-provides libpng.so.3 E: libpng tag-not-utf8 %changelog Minor: * Not preferred build root. %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * Drop the '.' from the devel summary to quite rpmlint. Is it still true that some graphical boot packages need the static lib? And if so, does it make sense to make a sub-package for the static lib? -- 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