Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mysql++ - C++ wrapper for the MySQL C API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230394 bugzilla@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|normal |medium lxtnow@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow@xxxxxxxxx 2007-04-18 17:48 EST ------- OK - Mock Build on FC-6 and FC-Devel (tested on i386 and i86_64 arch) OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro and subpackages usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License is LGPL OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec file is in American English OK - Spec files is legible. OK - Sources SHOULD match upstream md5sum: 2856acf395940aa02a27d2db1bfc0801 mysql++-2.2.3.tar.gz OK - Package has correct buildroot. OK - BuildRequires isn't redundant. OK - Sub-packages is proper. OK - %build and %install stages is correct and work. OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages and Sub-packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package and Sub-packages has no duplicate files in %files section. OK - Package and Sub-packages don't own any directories other packages own. OK - Changelog section is correct. OK - rpmlint output are silent on RPMs (including sub-package) and SRPM files. Soname clearly fixed. OK - Should function as described. OK - Should package latest version ---------- 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