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: hwbrowser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225892 panemade@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From panemade@xxxxxxxxx 2007-04-25 05:46 EST ------- OK. As maintainer is also upstream developer so no issues then. Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for for RPM. - rpmlint is NOT silent for SRPM. + source files match upstream. c817a01e5bf60e30458df5b4b90d27d7 hwbrowser-0.32.tar.gz + 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 COPYING is included in package. + %doc is small so no need of -doc subpackage. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no static libraries. + no .pc files are present. + no -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + Desktop file installed correctly. + no scriptlets are used. + Provides: config(hwbrowser) = 0.32-1.fc7 + 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