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=585754
Thomas Janssen <thomasj(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Janssen <thomasj(a)fedoraproject.org> 2010-04-28 14:16:17
EDT ---
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name. (uses provides)
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License
LGPLv2+
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
40f74fd1ebc9a9a9643aab629bdfcfae
NN - Package needs ExcludeArch
OK - BuildRequires correct
NN - Spec handles locales/find_lang
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
NN - Doc subpackage needed/used.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
OK - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
OK - .so files in -devel subpackage.
OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
NN - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - No rpmlint output.
OK - final provides and requires are sane
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.