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=524386 Tom "spot" Callaway <tcall...@redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org |tcall...@redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #11 from Tom "spot" Callaway <tcall...@redhat.com> 2009-10-26 13:41:08 EDT --- One minor thing I noticed on doing this review: This package is not built with the Fedora optflags. The simplest way to accomplish this is to add this line at the end of %setup: sed -i 's|-O3|%{optflags}|g' Makefile Please make that change (or an equivalent change to use the Fedora optflags during compilation), show me the updated SRPM, and I will approve this package and sponsor you. == Review (done against package with above change) == Good: - rpmlint checks return nothing - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (GPLv2+) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream (SHA256: 9b9ed82f6f0f833a72a6acb3ff96a993d87ff59311cb1f219a76e92ec1771885) - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
