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: abook - Text-based addressbook program for mutt https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177104 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-12 20:29 EST ------- I'll go ahead and take a look at this. It builds fine in mock; rpmlint on the SRPM has this to say: W: abook macro-in-%changelog rlz1 W: abook macro-in-%changelog rlz1 W: abook macro-in-%changelog rlz1 W: abook macro-in-%changelog rlz1 W: abook macro-in-%changelog rlz1 You just need to double some percent signs. E: abook no-cleaning-of-buildroot You should clean out $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at the beginning of %install. rpmlint on the built RPM is quiet. * source files match upstream: 87d25df96864a7c507a4965e6d1da49d abook-0.5.6.tar.gz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint has valid complaints * final provides and requires are sane: abook = 0.5.6-1.fc6 = libncursesw.so.5()(64bit) libreadline.so.5()(64bit) lynx * %check is not present; no test suite upstream * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. * locale files present; fing_lang used appropriately. -- 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