[Bug 178900] Review Request: monodoc

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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: monodoc


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178900


bdpepple at ameritech.net changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|163778                      |163779
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From bdpepple at ameritech.net  2006-06-01 15:32 EST -------
MD5Sums:
b5366181170e473c918537af145adafb  monodoc-1.1.13.tar.gz

Good:
* Upstream source tarball verified
* Package name conforms to the Fedora Naming Guidelines
* Group Tag is from the official list
* Buildroot has all required elements
* All paths begin with macros
* Builds fine in Mock

Minor:
* Any reason why you use '%define _libdir %{_exec_prefix}/lib' instead of
'%define _libdir /usr/lib'?  Your macro doesn't appear to be fixing anything,
and needs be corrected before importing into CVS.

Notes:
* rpmlint gives the following error, which can be ignored since it's a mono package:
  E: monodoc no-binary
  E: monodoc only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
* In the future, it would make reviewing easier if you used the spec file
templates from the fedora-rpmdevtools package.

+1 ACCEPT

-- 
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.