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: mathomatic - Small, portable symbolic math program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=447766 ------- Additional Comments From michel.sylvan@xxxxxxxxx 2008-06-06 19:04 EST ------- Only one small problem: desktop-file-install is used without a vendor tag. Could you make it desktop-file-install --vendor="fedora" ... ? (the exception is for packages that have their own vendor tags, e.g. KDE, GNOME, XFCE) APPROVED • rpmlint: clean • package name: ok • spec file name: ok • package guideline-compliant: ok • license complies with guidelines: ok • license field accurate: ok • license file not deleted: ok • spec in US English: ok • spec legible: ok • source matches upstream: ok • builds under >= 1 archs, others excluded: ok • build dependencies complete: ok • own all directories: ok • no dupes in %files: ok • permission: ok • %clean RPM_BUILD_ROOT: ok • macros used consistently: ok • Package contains code: ok • large docs => -doc: small enough • desktop file uses desktop-file-install: ok -- note: vendor tag missing • clean buildroot before install: ok • filenames UTF-8: ok SHOULD • desc and summary contain translations if available • package build in mock on all architectures: none • package functioned as described: ok • scriplets are sane: ok (see note on vendor tag) • other subpackages should require versioned base: ok (though in this case it seems functionally independent) • require package not files: ok -- 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