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: asl - Macro Assembler AS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240807 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow@xxxxxxxxx 2007-06-06 22:40 EST ------- It's a good things that packager check changes from his maintained packages. but if there is changes or something wrong from %files don't worry mock/rpmbuild will show you. just quick note: %docs directive isn't necessary for man files. %{_mandir}/man1/<files> -> is enough well, OK - Mock : Built on F-7 (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: c578c07675431f40c514921db6fdd102 asl-current-142-bld55.tar.bz2 OK - Package has correct buildroot. OK - BuildRequires is not redundant for this package. 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 both srpm and rpm. -- 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