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=458617 --- Comment #2 from Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx> 2008-08-11 05:26:28 EDT --- formal review is here, see the notes below OK source files match upstream: 41eaa1c77af11166ff5ec4abc013076f545bc676 xf86-input-synaptics-0.15.0.tar.bz2 OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK build root is correct. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible (MIT). License text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. OK* BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK* package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64). OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK no scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. - when libtool is used as BR: then autoconf and automake are redundant - parallel make is not used - see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Parallel_make - you should include README as %doc -- 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