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: pharosc - VLSI and ASIC Technology Standard Cell Libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=263121 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow@xxxxxxxxx 2007-08-29 18:04 EST ------- [ OK ] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ OK ] Spec file name must match the base package. [ OK ] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [ OK ] Package successfully to build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [ CHECK ] Tested on: Mock [FC-devel] [ OK ] Package is not relocatable. [ OK ] Buildroot is correct [ OK ] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license. [ OK ] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [ OK ] License type: LGPL [ OK ] The source package includes the text of the license(s). [ OK ] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ SKIP ] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [ OK ] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. [ OK ] The spec file handles locales properly. [ SKIP ] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [ Ok ] Package must own all directories that it creates. [ OK ] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [ OK ] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [ OK ] Permissions on files are set properly. [ OK ] Package has a %clean section. [ OK ] Package consistently uses macros. [ OK ] Package contains code, or permissable content. [ OK ] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [ CHECK ] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ SKIP] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [ SKIP ] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [ SKIP ] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [ SKIP ] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [ CHECK ] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [ OK ] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [ SKIP ] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file. [ OK ] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. # Quick comment * some files which're installed in subpackage (such as README, templates/) should be marked as %doc * Just add a quick comment in %build stage even if there's no build action. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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