[Bug 221947] Review Request: gwenhywfar - utility library
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Jan 12 06:52:35 UTC 2007
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: gwenhywfar - utility library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221947
panemade at gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779
nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-01-12 01:52 EST -------
Review:
+ package builds in mock (development i386).
+ rpmlint is silent for SRPM.
- rpmlint is NOT silent for RPMS.
E: gwenhywfar-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share.
But its ok as it looks mis-error by rpmlint.
+ source files match upstream.
0f7cf7d0efa6719f85c00d6d8ccec2b3 gwenhywfar-2.3.0.tar.gz
+ package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
+ specfile is properly named, is cleanly written
+ Spec file is written in American English.
+ Spec file is legible.
+ dist tag is present.
+ build root is correct.
+ license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
+ %doc is small; no -doc subpackage required.
+ %doc does not affect runtime.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ %clean is present.
+ package installed properly.
+ Macro use appears rather consistent.
+ Package contains code Not contents.
+ no static libraries present.
+ no gwenhywfar.pc files present.
+ -devel subpackage exists
+ included
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
+ no .la files.
+ translations are available
+ Dose owns the directories it creates.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ no scriptlets used.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
APPROVED.
--
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.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list