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=481482 Marcela Maslanova <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[email protected] |[email protected] Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Marcela Maslanova <[email protected]> 2009-01-27 03:08:01 EDT --- OK source files match upstream: 0d94cc39ac646175ad38451ef752e982 OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK build root is correct. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64). http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1085238 OK debuginfo package isn't need. OK rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires look sane. OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK no scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. Please remove the empty lines from description before build. ACCEPTED -- 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 [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
