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: linpsk - Psk31 and RTTY program for Linux https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435220 kanarip@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |kanarip@xxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag| |fedora-review+, | |needinfo?(bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx | |g) ------- Additional Comments From kanarip@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-02-28 18:23 EST ------- RPM Lint: OK Package name: OK Spec file: OK License: OK (GPLv2 or later) Actual License: OK (GPLv2 in COPYING, GPLv2+ in source) %doc License: OK Spec file language: OK Spec file readable: OK Upstream source vs. used tarball: OK Compile and Build: - F-7: OK - F-8: OK - rawhide: OK - EL-5: OK Applicable Package Guidelines: - -debuginfo package: OK (~2.5M) Locales: N/A Shared libs: N/A Relocatable: N/A Directory and file ownership: OK No duplicate files in %files: OK File Permissions: OK Macro usage: OK Code vs. Content: OK (Large) Documentation: OK %doc affecting runtime: OK Header files in -devel package: N/A Static Libraries in -static package: N/A pkgconfig Requires: N/A Library files: N/A Devel requires base package: N/A .la libtool archives: N/A Duplicate ownership of files/directories: OK Remove BuildRoot: OK UTF-8 filenames: OK A small suggestion for the %files section; you might want to use more wildcards (*) instead of %{name}, but it's really up to you as a maintainer. Otherwise, once more, your packages are a breeze to review. APPROVED -- 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