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=459198 --- Comment #1 from Peter Vrabec <pvrabec@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-08-15 07:08:48 EDT --- OK: rpmlint prelude-notify-0.9-0.1.svn10860.fc9.src.rpm NOT OK: rpmlint /home/pvrabec/RPM/RPMS/i386/prelude-notify- 0.9-0.1.svn10860.fc9.i386.rpm prelude-notify.i386: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.svn10860 0.9-0.1.svn10860.fc9 prelude-notify.i386: E: no-binary - shouldn't it be marked as noarch? NOT OK: Package Naming Guidelines - add COPYING and AUTHORS file - install desktop file by desktop-file-install OK: Licensing Guidelines OK: License field in the package spec file OK: American English OK: spec file for the package MUST be legible OK: The sources match the upstream source OK: successfully compile OK: ExcludeArch OK: BuildRequires OK: locales OK: shared library files OK: Prefix: /usr OK: own all directories OK: duplicate files in the %files OK: Permissions on files OK: clean section OK: macros OK: documentation files OK: %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application OK: Header files must be in a -devel package OK: Static libraries must be in a -static package OK: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' OK: library files with a suffix OK: fully versioned dependency OK: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives OK: GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop OK: not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK: package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} OK: valid UTF-8 -- 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