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=438806 --- Comment #7 from Remi Collet <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-08-16 05:36:53 EDT --- * source files match upstream: 68e0a84fb3aca46e6e0a6ccfe25c2d6b HTTP_Header-1.2.0.tgz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license (BSD) * license is open source-compatible. * latest version is being packaged (1.2.0) * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development). * package installs properly * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: php-pear(HTTP_Header) = 1.2.0 php-pear-HTTP-Header = 1.2.0-2.fc8 * %check is not present; test suite cannot run in rpmbuild * owns the directories it creates (HTTP already owned but by non-dependant rpm) * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets are OK (pear install) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. Please remove the TODO comment as file list is ok. Remove php-common from Requires as already required by pear (only need if you want to set a minimal version, which is not the case) This 2 lines are redundant. %dir %{pear_phpdir}/HTTP %{pear_phpdir}/HTTP Missing BR on dos2unix, so doesn't build in mock. Add it or switch to sed. -- 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