Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: obconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195412 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-13 00:20 EST ------- Review: + rpmlint shows no error. + package meets the naming guidelines. + spec-file is properly named. + package meets the packaging guidelines. + package license is open-source compatible (GPL). + license field matches the actual license. + license file included in %doc. + spec file is written in english. + spec file is legible. + source files match upstream: aaf62498b11d52dfce7a0b6060867a19 obconf-1.6.tar.gz + package successfully compiled, built and tested on i386 (rawhide). + all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + package doesn't need to use %find_lang (no locales present). + package doesn't contain shared libraries. + package isn't relocatable. + package owns all directories that it creates. + no duplicate files in %files. + file permissions are properly set. + package has a %clean section. + package uses macros consistently. + package contains code, not content. + no -doc subpackage needed. + %docs don't affect application runtime. + package doesn't contain headers, static libraries or pkgconfig files (no devel package). ? GUI application; desktop file is installed with a small warning (as pointed out by Parag AN): I don't think this issue is worth patching the file (specially since it is automatically fixed) but I do think a bug should be filed upstream. + package doesn't own directories owned by other packages. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedorafirstname.lastname@example.org http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review