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=496718
Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert(a)fysast.uu.se> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert(a)fysast.uu.se> 2009-04-28
09:23:20 EDT ---
Fedora review mingw32-plotmm-0.1.2-2.fc11.src.rpm 2009-04-28
* OK
! needs attention
* rpmlint output
Only expected Errors/Warnings from a mingw package
* Package is named according to Fedora mingw packaging guidelines
* Spec file is named as the package
* Package follows the Fedora mingw packaging guidelines
* The package's license is LGPLv2, which is Fedora approved
* The license is the same as the corresponding native package
* The license file (COPYING) in the sources is packaged as %doc
* The spec file is written in legible English
* Source matches upstream
d8a49db390be5de5965e52ef8d8581f3 plotmm-0.1.2.tar.gz
d8a49db390be5de5965e52ef8d8581f3 SRPM/plotmm-0.1.2.tar.gz
* According to guidelines the version should match the version of the
corresponding Fedora package - which it does.
* Package builds in mock (Fedora 10)
* BuildRequires look sane
* Owns the directories it creates
* No duplicate files
* %files has %defattr
* %clean clears %buildroot
* Specfile uses macros consistently
* Package does not own other's directories
* %install clears %buildroot
* Installed filenames are valid UTF8
Package 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.