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: mpfr - A C library for multiple-precision floating-point computations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248363 jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx BugsThisDependsOn| |225809 Flag| |fedora-review?, needinfo? ------- Additional Comments From jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-07-16 12:19 EST ------- Good: + Package meets naming guildlines. + SPEC file name matches with package base name. + License tag says GPL + Project home page says LGPL as package license + Package contains verbatim copy of the license text + SPEC is written in English + SPEC file is legible + Tar ball matches with upstream (md5sum: 40bf06f8081461d8db7d6f4ad5b9f6bd) + Package has correct build root + BuildRequires are not redundant + Local build works fine. + package has %defattr an proper file permissions + %doc section is small + %doc section doesn't affect run time + Package contains no duplicates in the %file list + Changelog entries are ok. + Rpmlint is quite on source package. + Rpmlint is quite on binary packages + Mock build works fine for Devel (x86_64, i386, ppp64, ppc) Bad: - Package needs a Conflict tag, because the current gmp package contains the mpfr package - Unnecessary condition on deleting build root in %clean section - Devel package contains static library -- 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