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=472842 Brennan Ashton <bashton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bashton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Brennan Ashton <bashton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-25 20:45:27 EDT --- Note, I am unsponsored so I cannot approve this MUSTS: *rpmlint -- passes cleanly in mock on rpm srpm and spec 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. *Package name correct *Spec name correct *Licensed fedora safe and correct *Licence files is not in its own file so %doc is ok without it *spec in english *spec is readable *md5sum is same as source file 0af47e825f510204d839cb190743ad40 *builds in mock *builds in mock so buildrequires are good *locales N/A *library files N/A *not designed to be relocatable *owns created dirs *permissions set *no large docs *%docs not runtime *no devel needed *no static libs *no .pc files *no .la files *not gui app *does not take ownership of other packages files *buildroot cleaned at start of %install *all file names valid UTF-8 SHOULDS: I did not see the licence as a separate file has upstream been notified? Any spec descriptions available? Builds fine in mock. Builds for all arch (noarch) I have not done a functionality test. No scriptlets. No subpackages. This package looks good to me, may want to look into the two questions I put in the SHOULDS section. -- 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