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: emacs-common-ebib - BibTeX database manage for Emacsen https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=239247 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-01-20 14:55 EST ------- All rpmlint has to say is: emacs-ebib.noarch: W: no-documentation emacs-ebib-el.noarch: W: no-documentation xemacs-ebib.noarch: W: no-documentation xemacs-ebib-el.noarch: W: no-documentation which are all OK as the documentation is in the -common package. Everything looks good to me. * source files match upstream: 682e62f50865008574e01180846e900a024cd45eacd809df01035a772a556c48 ebib-1.5.2.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: emacs-common-ebib-1.5.2-1.fc9.noarch.rpm emacs-common-ebib = 1.5.2-1.fc9 = /bin/sh /sbin/install-info emacs-ebib-1.5.2-1.fc9.noarch.rpm emacs-ebib = 1.5.2-1.fc9 = emacs(bin) >= 22.1.50 emacs-common-ebib = 1.5.2-1.fc9 emacs-ebib-el-1.5.2-1.fc9.noarch.rpm emacs-ebib-el = 1.5.2-1.fc9 = emacs-ebib = 1.5.2-1.fc9 xemacs-ebib-1.5.2-1.fc9.noarch.rpm xemacs-ebib = 1.5.2-1.fc9 = emacs-common-ebib = 1.5.2-1.fc9 xemacs(bin) >= 21.5.28 xemacs-ebib-el-1.5.2-1.fc9.noarch.rpm xemacs-ebib-el = 1.5.2-1.fc9 = xemacs-ebib = 1.5.2-1.fc9 * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I did not test this package. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets are OK (info docs installation) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. 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