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=468539 Bryan Kearney <bkearney@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bkearney@xxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |bkearney@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #7 from Bryan Kearney <bkearney@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-21 08:31:47 EDT --- OK - Package name OK - License info is accurate OK - License tag is correct and licenses are approved OK - License files are installed as %doc OK - Specfile name OK - Specfile is legible OK - No prebuilt binaries included OK - BuildRoot value (one of the recommended values) OK - PreReq not used XX - Source md5sum matches upstream These do not match, and upstream is "hidden". Please change to a checkout from source repo. OK - No hardcoded pathnames OK - Package owns all the files it installs OK - 'Requires' create needed unowned directories OK - Package builds successfully on i386 and x86_64 (mock) OK - BuildRequires sufficient OK - File permissions set properly OK - Macro usage is consistent OK - rpmlint is silent Warnings are OK I have not installed it onto a blank sugar install yet, but have you verified all the imports are in the Requires? Please resolve the source code and I will re-review. -- 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