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=469955 --- Comment #7 from Matthias Clasen <mclasen@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-26 01:46:25 EDT --- two more informal comments on the spec before I run down the checklist: - I don't think the explicit Requires: PolicyKit is needed, library deps should take care of that - The Conflicts: pam_fprint should probably have a comment explaining your rationale from comment #2 rpmlint run: see above package name: ok spec file name: ok packaging guidelines: ok license: ok license field: not ok the license field says GPLv2+, and the source files say so too, but the license file is GPL3. What gives ? license file: ok spec file language: ok spec file legible: ok upstream sources: ok buildable: ok ExcludeArch: ok BuildRequires: ok locale handling: ok shared libs: ok relocatable: ok directory ownership: not ok -devel should require gtk-doc, for /usr/share/gtk-doc/html -pam should require pam, for /lib/security duplicate files: ok permissions: not ok the %files sections for pam and devel need %defattr %clean: ok macro use: ok permissible content: ok large docs: ok %doc content: ok headers: ok static libs: ok pc files: ok shared libs: ok devel deps: ok libtool archives: ok gui apps: ok file ownership: ok %install: ok utf8 filenames: ok summary: some small fixes left -- 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