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=502926 --- Comment #9 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-06-29 07:40:35 EDT --- Notes: * Wrong category for desktop-file-install. It should be "Graphics" instead of "Development". Easy to fix. * Since it provides skencil and sketch, I suggest you to add "Obsoletes" for sketch as well. However, I'm not sure about it, since I cannot remember, did sketch was included in Fedora or not. Anyway, here is my REVIEW: - rpmlint is not silent: [petro@Workplace Desktop]$ rpmlint sK1-0.9.1-0.1.pre_rev730.fc12.i586.rpm sK1.i586: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sk1/__init__.py 0644 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. [petro@Workplace Desktop]$ This file contains shebang, and therefore rpmlint thinks of its as a script. Easyfix. + 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. + The files, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, are included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible (as usual for python apps and libraries). +/- The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Unfortunately, your URL is wrong. Please fix it [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ sha256sum sk1-0.9.1pre_rev730.tar.gz* 56d4b58d30b52e97dccb81ce157e41c2b6b5f0c0c383b0f4c55bacb317443c84 sk1-0.9.1pre_rev730.tar.gz 56d4b58d30b52e97dccb81ce157e41c2b6b5f0c0c383b0f4c55bacb317443c84 sk1-0.9.1pre_rev730.tar.gz.1 [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See koji link above. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The 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} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. + No extra 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 with desktop-file-install 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. Please fix mentioned issues. -- 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