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=226549 Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx> 2008-10-14 05:55:04 EDT --- formal review is here: OK source files match upstream: efc5b923feda52866c859c59a5b553cb675a69d1 Xaw3d-1.5E.tar.gz 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 (MIT). OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64). OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. OK 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 correct 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 headers in -devel. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. this package is APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review