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=466743 Parag AN(पराग) <panemade@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-13 11:52:54 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock. Koji build => http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=877434 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files not verified as dependent aspell-br package is already verified with upstream in its own review. + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc files present. + BuildRequires are proper. + defattr usage is correct. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code. + no static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + no translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + no scriptlets are used. + Not a GUI app. Suggestions:- 1) Can you preserve timestamp of documentation files by using following in SPEC cp -p %{_docdir}/aspell-br*/* . 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