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: conduit - Conduit is a synchronization solution for GNOME https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239236 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow@xxxxxxxxx 2007-05-23 20:11 EST ------- Well, OK - Mock : Built on FC6 en F-7 (i386 and x86_64) OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License field in spec matches OK - License is GPL OK - License match extras packaging policy licenses allowed OK - License file is included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources SHOULD match upstream md5sum: c9ce0b7b4519597b5f480b20c42e04c9 conduit-0.3.0.tar.gz OK - Package has correct buildroot. OK - BuildRequires isn't redundant. 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 %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Changelog section is correct. OK - Should function as described. OK - Should package latest version ------------------------------------------------ Rpmlint output: ------------------------------------------------ OK - silent on srpm NO - not silent on rpm package E: agistudio zero-length /usr/share/agistudio/template/snddir this error is harmless but need to be fix as the file is h=just a template and contains nothing, it can be remove from pakcage. * From source0 tag you should set %{name}-%{version}.tar.gz instead of static basename and version. to improve future update. -- 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