Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: readline https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226361 panemade@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From panemade@xxxxxxxxx 2007-11-12 06:57 EST ------- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream. e39331f32ad14009b9ff49cc10c5e751 readline-5.2.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc files present. + BuildRequires are proper. + Compiler flags are honoured correctly. + defattr usage is correct. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code. - static libraries are present. + no .pc file present. + -devel,-static subpackages exists. + no .la files. + no translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + no scriptlets are used. + package readline-5.2-8.fc8 -> Provides: libhistory.so.5 libreadline.so.5 Requires: libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) libhistory.so.5 libreadline.so.5 libtinfo.so.5 rtld(GNU_HASH) + package readline-5.2-8.fc8 -> Requires: libhistory.so.5 libreadline.so.5 ncurses-devel readline = 5.2-8.fc8 + package readline-static-5.2-8.fc8 -> Requires: readline-devel = 5.2-8.fc8 + Not a GUI app. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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