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=485418 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #14 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-17 02:38:18 EDT --- REVIEW: - rpmlint is not silent: [petro@Sulaco rpmbuild]$ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/vgabios-0.6-0.3beta.fc10.noarch.rpm vgabios.noarch: W: non-standard-group Application/Emulators vgabios.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.6.0.3 ['0.6-0.3beta.fc10', '0.6-0.3beta'] 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [petro@Sulaco rpmbuild]$ These two warnings are easy-to-fix. First, you accidentally made a typo - non Application/Emulators, but Applications/Emulators (see /usr/share/doc/rpm-4.6.0/GROUPS ). Second, just use correct EVR in %changelog, e.g. replace * Mon Feb 16 2009 Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxx> - 0.6.0.3 with * Mon Feb 16 2009 Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxx> - 0.6-0.3beta + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. - The package meets the Packaging Guidelines, and I have only one small advice. This string (looks like leftover) should be removed: mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_docdir}/vgabios + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. + The file with text of the license is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ md5sum vgabios-0.6b.tgz* 36399621c4d6753e83a3cec3009c7183 vgabios-0.6b.tgz 36399621c4d6753e83a3cec3009c7183 vgabios-0.6b.tgz.from_srpm [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture (my ppc) + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + No need to handle locales. + No shared libraries. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + The package consistently use macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. + No large documentation files. + The stuff, that the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + No header files. + No static libraries. + No pkgconfig(.pc) files. + No library files with a suffix + No .la libtool archives + Not a GUI app + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in the package must be valid UTF-8. Assuming, that you fixed three issues, described above (two from rpmlint and one leftover), and that buildroot already contains latest dev86 rpm, this package is 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@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review