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=462982 --- Comment #11 from manuel wolfshant <wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-02 14:29:11 EDT --- In order to make tracking easier for everyone, please bump the release tag each time you modify the spec file (and _add_ a corresponding changelog entry, not _replace_ the previous one as you have done). For instance %changelog * Thu Oct 02 2008 Bruno Cornec <bruno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 1.19-2.fc9 - fix compilation flags * Sat Sep 20 2008 Bruno Cornec <bruno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 1.19-1.fc9 - Updated to 1.19 as of 02.oct.2008, ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/test/fedora/9/buffer.spec still has the missing "s" in Summary(fr). Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: devel/x86_64 [x] Rpmlint output: source RPM: empty binary RPM:empty [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -XXXXXX)) [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: GPL+ [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing th e text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. SHA1SUM of package: a2bb4ed163cb166bf54a1ba341c8d1fcba48f271 buffer-1.19.tar.gz [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [-] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packag ing Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, i f available. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: devel/x86_64 [?] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: [?] Package functions as described. [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct. [-] File based requires are sane. === Issues === 1.Summary(Fr) should be fixed before uploading to CVS ================ *** APPROVED *** ================ I will take a look at your other packages and if satisfied I will sponsor you. -- 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