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: aspell-bg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225258 panemade@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From panemade@xxxxxxxxx 2007-03-28 08:07 EST ------- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). - rpmlint is NOT silent for SRPM and RPM. But following messages are ignorable E: aspell-bg no-binary E: aspell-bg only-non-binary-in-usr-lib E: aspell-bg configure-without-libdir-spec + SPEC file contains explanation about above warnings. + source files match upstream. 93619a5b054d06601feedc7166ad7aa8 aspell-bg-0.50-2.tar.bz2 + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is small; no -doc subpackage required. + %doc does not affect runtime. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + no translations are available. + Dose owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + Requires: aspell >= 12:0.60 + Provides: aspell-bg = 50:0.50-14 + Not a GUI APP. APPROVED. -- 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