Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: PolicyKit-gnome package review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245016 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-06-21 00:25 EST ------- Formal checklist: rpmlint: only warns about no docs in the -demo subpackage. I wonder if you want to include the sourcecode in the package, to make the demo actually useful for people looking for example code ? package name: follows tarball name, ok spec file name: ok packaging guidelines: - the source url was already mentioned - the %build section should also have a make, not just a configure license: ok license field: ok license file: ok, American English: yes legibility: excellent upstream sources: ok buildable: yes excludearch: n/a BRs: ok locale handling: n/a (LINGUAS is empty atm) shared libs: n/a relocatable: no directory ownership: - should /usr/share/PolicyKit and /usr/share/PolicyKit/policy be owned by PolicyKit itself ? file list duplicates: none permissions: ok %clean section: ok macro use: ok content: permissable documentation: ok %doc content: ok header files: n/a static libs: n/a pkgconfig files: n/a shared libs: n/a libtool archives: n/a desktop files: ok, I think. maybe you need to put a comment file ownership: ok %install: cleans build root filenames utf8: ok -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review