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=468197 Jon Stanley <jonstanley@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jonstanley@xxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |jonstanley@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Jon Stanley <jonstanley@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-23 11:33:28 EDT --- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: N/A - Package needs ExcludeArch OK - BuildRequires correct N/A - Spec handles locales/find_lang N/A - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) OK - Package is code or permissible content. N/A - Doc subpackage needed/used. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. N/A - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. N/A - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun N/A - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig N/A - .so files in -devel subpackage. N/A - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} N/A - .la files are removed. OK - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. N/A - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: (include output of for i in *rpm; do echo $i; rpm -qp --provides $i; echo =; rpm -qp --requires $i; echo; done manually indented after checking each line. I also remove the rpmlib junk and anything provided by glibc.) SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs N/A - Should function as described. OK - Should have sane scriptlets. OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version N/A - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) As noted on IRC, the category in the spec is a little off, but not a blocker. 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