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: rhpl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226372 panemade@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From panemade@xxxxxxxxx 2007-12-11 22:31 EST ------- Strange dunno what happened, I guess its problem with build user that I used to build locally package in mock When package build using rpmbuild I saw no issues of rpmlint. Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and RPM. + source files match upstream. 1cf6842afd763b6aa16ea4a3e326a4af rhpl-0.212.tar.bz2 + 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 honored correctly. + defattr usage is correct but can be used as %defattr(-,root,root,-) + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code. + no static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + no scriptlets are used. + Package rhpl-0.212-1 Provides: _diskutil.so _translate.so ethtool.so iconv.so iwlib.so Requires: libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) libiw.so.29 libpthread.so.0 libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.0) libpython2.5.so.1.0 python(abi) = 2.5 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