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: obconf
------- Additional Comments From jtorresh(a)gmail.com 2006-07-13 00:20 EST -------
+ rpmlint shows no error.
+ package meets the naming guidelines.
+ spec-file is properly named.
+ package meets the packaging guidelines.
+ package license is open-source compatible (GPL).
+ license field matches the actual license.
+ license file included in %doc.
+ spec file is written in english.
+ spec file is legible.
+ source files match upstream:
+ package successfully compiled, built and tested on i386 (rawhide).
+ all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
+ package doesn't need to use %find_lang (no locales present).
+ package doesn't contain shared libraries.
+ package isn't relocatable.
+ package owns all directories that it creates.
+ no duplicate files in %files.
+ file permissions are properly set.
+ package has a %clean section.
+ package uses macros consistently.
+ package contains code, not content.
+ no -doc subpackage needed.
+ %docs don't affect application runtime.
+ package doesn't contain headers, static libraries or pkgconfig files (no devel
? GUI application; desktop file is installed with a small warning (as pointed
out by Parag AN): I don't think this issue is worth patching the file (specially
since it is automatically fixed) but I do think a bug should be filed upstream.
+ package doesn't own directories owned by other packages.
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.