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=456138 Lucian Langa <cooly@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Lucian Langa <cooly@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-23 15:38:52 EDT --- OK source files match upstream: bf13f4ec695dd37bd01c4eff2db63ef9 debugger-0.9.6.tgz OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK summary is OK. OK description is OK. OK dist tag is present. OK build root is OK. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible. OK license text included in package. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). OK package installs properly. OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires are sane: libAnalyzer.so()(64bit) libBinarySearcher.so()(64bit) libBookmarks.so()(64bit) libBreakpointManager.so()(64bit) libCheckVersion.so()(64bit) libDebuggerCore.so()(64bit) libDumpState.so()(64bit) libELFBinaryInfo.so()(64bit) libEnvironment.so()(64bit) libFunctionDB.so()(64bit) libFunctionFinder.so()(64bit) libHardwareBreakpoints.so()(64bit) libHeapAnalyzer.so()(64bit) libOpcodeSearcher.so()(64bit) libOpenFiles.so()(64bit) libReferences.so()(64bit) libStringSearcher.so()(64bit) libSymbolViewer.so()(64bit) edb = 0.9.6-2.fc10 edb(x86-64) = 0.9.6-2.fc10 = /bin/sh libQtCore.so.4()(64bit) libQtGui.so.4()(64bit) libQtNetwork.so.4()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) OK %check is not present. I was able to run application and debug a binary file N/A no 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. N/A scriptlets present look OK N/A initscript looks OK. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no static libraries. OK no libtool .la files. OK this is a GUI application, desktop file OK Suggestion: please see if you can provide an icon file for this package. (try upstream, or try to find a default one) 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