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=460690 --- Comment #2 from Luya Tshimbalanga <luya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-08-31 20:15:02 EDT --- Here is a summary: $ rpmlint rpmbuild/SRPMS/echo-artist-0.1-1.fc9.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings $ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/echo-artist-0.1-1.fc9.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. The package is correctly named according to Package Naming Guidelines https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines Name of spec files matches the %{name} Package complies to Packaging Guidelines https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines Package is licensed under LGPLv2 Package is upstream and legible. Source URL matches upstream (https://fedorahosted.org/releases/e/c/echo-icon-theme/) Package does not use BuuldRequires because of scripts and uses Requires only. Package successfully compiled using koji. spec file contains %clean session. Permission is set correctly %defattr(-,root,root,-) Package is a set of script thus does not need .desktop. Uses of macros is consistent. %{buildroot} would be favorite considering the internal change of rpm itself in Fedora 10. filename are in validated UTF-8 format. This package has passed all reviews thus ready to be accepted. -- 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