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=495412 --- Comment #18 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-06-10 07:08:11 EDT --- REVIEW: + rpmlint is almost silent - it only complains about empty sections, which should be removed (however it's a purely cosmetic change): [petro@Workplace Desktop]$ rpmlint flamerobin-* flamerobin.i386: W: empty-%post flamerobin.i386: W: empty-%postun flamerobin.i386: W: empty-%posttrans 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. [petro@Workplace Desktop]$ + 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 with one remaining issue - doc-files are listed twice. First - as %doc, second - as a contents of %{_datadir}/%{name}/docs. I advice you to add rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/%{name}/docs at the end of the %install section. Btw, maybe it's better to list docs as "%doc docs/*" rather than "%doc docs" ? + 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, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See links above. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + A package owns all directories that it creates. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + The package consistently uses macros. There is a single place where the $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is used instead of %{buildroot} - this may be ignored. + The package contains code, or permissible content. + No large documentation files. + Everything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + The package includes a %{name}.desktop file, and that file is properly installed (checked with desktop-file-validate in the %install section). + 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 rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Conclusion: * consider to remove empty sections from spec-file * remove duplicated docs from $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/%{name} -- 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