Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=740160 --- Comment #24 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- Looks like there wasn't much for me to do; this package is clean. Sorry it took so long for you to receive a review. I would go ahead and sponsor you now and get this done, but I don't believe you've mentioned your FAS account anywhere in this ticket, there is more than one "Craig Barnes" in FAS and neither of them seems to share an email address with the address you're using for bugzilla or any address in the spec changelog. So if you'll just give me that bit of info before we can proceed. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 702bb29e17e387f82e40fae062d5e4939bc6fb22dcf53e6109982a5faa110796 discount-2.1.6.tar.bz2 * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (none needed) * compiler flags are appropriate. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: discount-2.1.6-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm discount = 2.1.6-1.fc20 discount(x86-64) = 2.1.6-1.fc20 = libmarkdown(x86-64) = 2.1.6-1.fc20 libmarkdown.so.2()(64bit) libmarkdown-2.1.6-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm libmarkdown = 2.1.6-1.fc20 libmarkdown(x86-64) = 2.1.6-1.fc20 libmarkdown.so.2()(64bit) = /sbin/ldconfig libmarkdown-devel-2.1.6-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm libmarkdown-devel = 2.1.6-1.fc20 libmarkdown-devel(x86-64) = 2.1.6-1.fc20 = libmarkdown(x86-64) = 2.1.6-1.fc20 libmarkdown.so.2()(64bit) * %check is present and all tests pass. * no bundled libraries (that I can find) * shared libraries present: ldconfig called properly unversioned .so files are in the -devel package. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files. * scriptlets are OK (ldconfig). * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers in the -devel package. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=yb2Wob0KMP&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review