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: ocaml-bitmatch - OCaml library for matching and constructing bitstrings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442705 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-01 10:08 EST ------- Good: - rpmlint checks return: ocaml-bitmatch.x86_64: E: no-binary ocaml-bitmatch.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib This is normal for camels. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines (general and OCaml) - license (LGPLv2+ with exceptions) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream (dea943842082fa6d236264b329eb1b079cc5d1d4) - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - devel package ok - no .la files - post/postun ldconfig not necessary - devel requires base package n-v-r 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, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
