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=458918 Rahul Sundaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #2 from Rahul Sundaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-13 08:35:09 EDT --- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistent macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. - License field in spec matches - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install 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 error/warnings Preliminary check shows package is functional. Suggestion: Might include the icons from http://pidgin-facebookchat.googlecode.com/files/facebook_icons.zip 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review