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: gnome-phone-manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198758 ------- Additional Comments From panemade@xxxxxxxxx 2006-07-14 05:58 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > == Not an official review as I'm not yet sponsored == > > Mock build for rawhide i386 is Failed. I need to add > > BuildReuires: perl-XML-Parser > > That should be: > > BuildReuires: perl(XML::Parser) > > > After that also i got errors as > > + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/find-lang.sh > > /var/tmp/gnome-phone-manager-0.7-1.fc6-root-mockbuild gnome-phone-manager > > No translations found for gnome-phone-manager in > > /var/tmp/gnome-phone-manager-0.7-1.fc6-root-mockbuild > > error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.77473 (%install) > > That's usually a sign of needing: > > BuildRequires: gettext > > > > > * MUST Items: > > - rpmlint shows no error. > > - dist tag is present. > > - The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > > - The spec file name matching the base package gnome-phone-manager, in the > > format gnome-phone-manager.spec. > > - This package meets the Packaging Guidelines. > > - The spec file for the package MUST be legible. > > - The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license GPL. > > - This package includes License file COPYING. > > - This source package includes the text of the license in its own file,and > > that file, containing the text of the license for the package is included in %doc. > > - The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, > > as provided in the spec URL. md5sum is correct (951471bf5d6fe93fe550c60b6bdf58f9) > > - This package did NOT successfully compiled and built into binary rpms > > for i386 architecture. > > - This package did not containd any ExcludeArch. > > - This package did NOT handled locales properly. This is done by using the > > %find_lang macro. Not used %{_datadir}/locale/*. > > It's a good idea to list things that need fixing separately from the rest of the > review checklist as that's clearer and easier to read. Will remember that. > > > - This package used macros. > > But did it use them *consistently*? That's what the review guidelines are asking > to be checked. Did i missed somthing to check in SPEC? > > > - Document files are included like README, NEWS, COPYING, AUTHORS > > Did you look to see if there are any other document files in the package that > might be included, or whether any of the included files don't have anything > useful to end users of the package? I didn't get you? > > > - Package did NOT contained any .la libtool archives. > > > > Also, > > * Source URL is present and working. > > * BuildRoot is correct BuildRoot: > > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > > * BuildRequires is correct > > No, they're not. The package failed to build in mock because of the missing > buildreqs of perl(XML::Parser) and gettext. > I forgot that i added perl(XML::Parser) not AUTHOR. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review