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=460107 --- Comment #1 from Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx> 2008-08-27 03:33:38 EDT --- formal review: OK source files match upstream: e214d3f22b9d261f0a587d68314d76d68739ef0e Text-vFile-asData-0.05.tar.gz 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. License text not included upstream. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. N/A compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64). N/A debuginfo package looks complete. OK rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires look sane. OK %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. this package is APPROVED -- 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