Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Marcela Maslanova <> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #1 from Marcela Maslanova <>  2009-02-10 
03:28:19 EDT ---
OK source files match upstream: 6626b490c5b62a796e6272126e4ff6e8
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).
OK debuginfo package is need and ok.
OK rpmlint is silent.
    fipscheck-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
    - The devel package don't have to contain documentation.
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 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.

The script is under GPLv2+ but you are not installing this file, so
the licence is ok as is.

Could you please explain the line below? Couldn't you change automake to
install it in right place?
mv $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_lib}

Configure bugmail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

Fedora-package-review mailing list

Reply via email to