Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457509 --- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-08-04 03:21:16 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide i386). koji Build => http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=756505 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url caa84f54fedf4fe1bcf50dfe69ec112d scim-thai-0.1.1.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 is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + Package scim-thai-0.1.1-2.fc10 => Provides: thai-imengine-setup.so thai.so Requires: libatk-1.0.so.0 libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) libcairo.so.2 libfontconfig.so.1 libfreetype.so.6 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 libgio-2.0.so.0 libglib-2.0.so.0 libgmodule-2.0.so.0 libgobject-2.0.so.0 libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 libm.so.6 libpango-1.0.so.0 libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 libpangoft2-1.0.so.0 libscim-1.0.so.8 libscim-1.0.so.8(LIBSCIM_1.0) libscim-gtkutils-1.0.so.8 libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4) libthai.so.0 rtld(GNU_HASH) -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review