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=444245 --- Comment #3 from Roy Rankin <rrankin@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-08-14 23:17:46 EDT --- OK rpmlint is silent. OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile named properly OK license is open source-compatible (GPLv2+). OK license field matches the actual license. OK license file included in %doc OK Specfile in english and readable OK source files match upstream and latest version(md5sum matches) OK package builds in mock (rawhide/i386). N/A specfile handles locales properly OK Package owns directories it creates OK Requires packages owning non-core directories it uses OK No duplicte files in %files OK %defattr(...) in every %files section OK valid %clean section OK consistent use of macros OK package includes code N/A Large documentation in -doc subpackage OK %doc files not required for running OK .h files in -devel subpackage N/A static libraries must be in -static subpackage N/A Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) must require pkgconfig OK If package contains lib files with suffix .so files in -devel OK -devel subpackage requires base package with versions OK no .la libtool not included in packages N/A GUI applications handle %{name}.desktop file properly OK %install runs rm -rf %{buildroot} OK filenames in packages use valid UTF-8 OK dist tag is present. rpmlint output: 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- 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