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=492690 Alexey Torkhov <atorkhov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #17 from Alexey Torkhov <atorkhov@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-08 04:03:17 EDT --- Now everything seems fine. Here is the review: + rpmlint output without serious errors: kvirc.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/kvirc/4.0/modules/caps/tool/sharedfilewindow kvirc.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/kvirc/4.0/modules/caps/tool/iograph kvirc.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/kvirc/4.0/modules/caps/tool/filetransferwindow kvirc.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/kvirc/4.0/modules/caps/tool/logview kvirc.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/kvirc/4.0/modules/caps/action/url 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 0 warnings. + 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. + 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. + File, containing the text of the licenses for the package 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. + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture (x86_64). + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + Spec file handles locales properly (%find_lang doesn't work here). + Package call ldconfig in %post and %postun. + The package does not designed to be relocatable. + A package owns all directories that it creates. + A package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}. + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissable content. + Does not contain large documentation files. + Includes only doc files in %doc. + No headers. + No static libraries. + The package does not contain pkgconfig(.pc) files. + If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. + No devel packages. + The package does not contain any .la libtool archives. + Includes %{name}.desktop file. Properly installed with desktop-file-install. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot}. + All filenames in the package are valid UTF-8. + Package builds in mock. + Package functions as described even with QT 4.5. + Scriptlets are sane. 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