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=470140 Till Maas <opensource@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Till Maas <opensource@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-08 17:29:32 EDT --- [OK] rpmlint output: silent [OK] Spec in %{name}.spec format [OK] license allowed: GPLv2 [OK] license matches shortname in License: tag [OK] license in tarball and included in %doc: LICENSE [OK] package is code or permissive content: {OK} patches sent to upstream and commented [OK] Source0 is a working URL {N/A} Sourceforge URL is Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz <OK> SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name} [OK] Source0 matches Upstream: 35546f5f651a607365f94e115eb2ecd8 nettee-0.1.9.tar.gz [OK] Package builds on all platforms: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=922713 [N/A] ExcludeArch bugs are filed and commented: [OK] BuildRequires are complete (mock builds) (OK) No file dependencies outside of /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin /usr/sbin [N/A] %find_lang used for locales [N/A] Every (sub)package containing libraries runs ldconfig %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig [N/A] .h (header) files are in -devel subpackage [N/A] .a (static libraries) are in -static subpackage [N/A] contains .pc (pkgconfig) files and has Requires: pkgconfig (N/A) .pc files are in -devel subpackage [N/A] contains .so.X(.Y) files and .so is in -devel [N/A] -devel subpackage has Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [N/A] .la files (libtool) are not included [N/A] Has GUI and includes %{name}.desktop [N/A] .desktop file installed with desktop-file-install in %install [OK] Prefix: /usr not used (not relocatable) [OK] Owns all created directories [OK] no duplicates in %files [OK] %defattr(-,root,root,-) is in every %files section [OK] Does not own files or dirs from other packages [OK] included filenames are in UTF-8 [OK] %clean is rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [OK] %install starts with rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [OK] Consistent macro usage [N/A] large documentation is -doc subpackage [OK] %doc does not affect runtime {OK} no pre-built binaries (.a, .so*, executable) {OK} well known BuildRoot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) {OK} PreReq not used {OK} RPM_OPT_FLAGS honoured {OK} Useful debuginfo generated {OK} no duplication of system libraries {OK} no rpath {OK} Timestamps preserved with cp and install {N/A} Uses parallel make (%{?_smp_mflags}) {OK} Requires(pre,post) style notation not used {OK} only writes to tmp /var/tmp $TMPDIR %{_tmppath} %{_builddir} (and %{buildroot} on %install and %clean) {OK} no Conflicts {OK} nothing installed in /srv {OK} Changelog in allowed format {OK} does not use Scriptlets <N/A> Architecture independent packages have: BuildArch: noarch <OK> Sane Provides: and Requires: {OK} Follows Naming Guidelines The package is APPROVED. Nevertheless I would think about using "chmod 644 *.sh" instead of "find *.sh -type f -name \* -exec chmod 644 {} \;", to make the spec easier to read. -- 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