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: memtest86+ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226135 wtogami@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|wtogami@xxxxxxxxxx |ruben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From wtogami@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-03 17:44 EST ------- > Needs work: > * BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot) OK > * Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment > (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake) OK, comment indicates that it isn't necessary. > * Spec file: some paths are not replaced with RPM macros > (wiki: QAChecklist item 7) Nothing remaining has a standardized macro available. > * The package should contain the text of the license > (wiki: Packaging/ReviewGuidelines) - MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. (does not apply) >Notes: >* Please use {?dist} in Release tag DONE >* Is the Obsoletes: memtest86 still necessary? Not really, removed > rpmlint of memtest86+: >E: memtest86+ no-binary rpmlint is just confused by this strange package. > W: memtest86+ wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/memtest86+-1.65/README What?! (Assigning back to reviewer) -- 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