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=473235 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-19 12:47:17 EDT --- Cool; I can grab the sources now, so nothing stops me from finishing this up. This is essentially identical to the other system-config-*-docs packages, so I'll be brief. rpmlint: system-config-date-docs.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided system-config-date not a problem. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: f04d7d7abf4aa8259a3a2b0ac789445621c363a40aadfbf76ad53285d7f18d92 system-config-date-docs-1.0.5.tar.bz2 * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * scriptlets are OK. * acceptable content 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