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=463226 --- Comment #1 from David Lutterkort <lutter@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-09-23 15:02:18 EDT --- OK - Package name OK - License info is accurate OK - License tag is correct and licenses are approved OK - License files are installed as %doc OK - Specfile name OK - Specfile is legible OK - No prebuilt binaries included FIX - BuildRoot value (one of the recommended values) Use one of the values listed here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag OK - PreReq not used FIX - Source md5sum matches upstream tarball is not available upstream; since you are upstream, you should publish a tarball for every release FIX - No hardcoded pathnames instead of binHome, use %{_bindir} instead of initHome, use %{_initrddir} instead of /usr/share in aceHome use %{_datadir} would prefer macro 'rubySiteHome' is called 'ruby_sitelibdir' for conistency OK - Package owns all the files it installs OK - 'Requires' create needed unowned directories OK - Package builds successfully on i386 and x86_64 (mock) OK - BuildRequires sufficient OK - File permissions set properly FIX - Macro usage is consistent use install -p or cp -pr instead of %{__cp} -R OK - rpmlint is silent -- 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