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=467798 --- Comment #2 from Adam Tkac <atkac@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-22 07:56:53 EDT --- source files match upstream: YES package meets naming and versioning guidelines: YES specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently: YES dist tag is present: YES build root is correct: YES license field matches the actual license: ??? license is open source-compatible??? License text included in package: NO latest version is being packaged: YES BuildRequires are proper: NO compiler flags are appropriate: NO %clean is present: YES package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64): NO debuginfo package looks complete: NO rpmlint is silent: NO final provides and requires look sane: YES %check is present and all tests pass: YES (check is not present) owns the directories it creates: YES doesn't own any directories it shouldn't: YES no duplicates in %files: YES file permissions are appropriate: YES code, not content: YES documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary: YES ----- - could you please tell me where exactly licence can be found? I wasn't able to find it. - BuildRequires missing: openssl-devel, krb5-devel - you are not passing $RPM_OPT_FLAGS to gcc - debuginfo is broken due missing -g option (it is included in RPM_OPT_FLAGS) - rpmlint warning: dnsperf.x86_64: W: non-standard-group System Environment/Utilities -- 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