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=821296 Sergio Monteiro Basto <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #1 from Sergio Monteiro Basto <[email protected]> 2012-05-14 14:53:34 EDT --- fedora-review -b 821296 --mock-config fedora-16-x86_64 [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Issues: [!]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Architecture_Support [!]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: The package did not built BR could therefore not be checked or the package failed to build because of missing BR See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions [!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
