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=461402 --- Comment #4 from Andreas Thienemann <andreas@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-09-07 07:47:25 EDT --- OK: source files match upstream: 0d884dc48b21831dd1ba51fac82d15116bcea202abecdec9182b217f4152fb6e 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. GPLv2+ and GFDL OK: latest version is being packaged. OK: BuildRequires are proper. OK: compiler flags are appropriate. OK: %clean is present. OK: package builds in mock. OK: package installs properly. OK: debuginfo package looks complete. OK: rpmlint is silent. OK: final provides and requires are sane: Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 Requires: libasound.so.2()(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit) libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.7)(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangoft2-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides: nted = 1.0.7-1.fc10 nted(x86-64) = 1.0.7-1.fc10 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: desktop files valid and installed properly. PASS: license text included in package. Upstream is shipping the wrong COPYING file it seems. The file declares GPLv3+ while the header in each file claims GPLv2+. _NOT_ shipping the COPYING file sounds acceptable. Please fix the $RPM_BUILD_ROOT usage to be in consistent style with the usage of %{name}-type variables. %docdir usage is wrong, please fix. As soon as that's done, package can be considered ACCEPT. -- 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