Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878653 Mathieu Bridon <bochecha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Mathieu Bridon <bochecha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- First, taking the issues I had raised before. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [!]: If the source package does not include the text of the license(s), the packager should contact upstream and encourage them to correct this mistake. => Upstream has been notified, and the next release will include it, so this will do. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). => As I said I wasn't sure about this, but I see you filtered the provides out, so I trust you figured this was the right thing to do. [-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. [x] Rpmlint is silent (or as silent as reasonable) The only other difference I see in the spec file is this: -%if 0%{?fedora} > 16 BuildRequires: libgnome-keyring-devel -%else -BuildRequires: gnome-keyring-devel -%endif => I hadn't seen that the first time, but this is a good change as F16 is EOL soon anyway. This new package fixes all issues I had found, and doesn't introduce any new one, so I'm approving it. -- 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