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=509883 --- Comment #5 from Gary T. Giesen <giesen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-07 11:05:02 EDT --- I actually had run rpmlint (In reply to comment #2) > rpmlint output: > sipcalc.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary Sipcalc > sipcalc.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary Sipcalc > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. > > - Drop "Sipcalc is" from the summary. > Done. > Also, learn to run rpmlint on your packages. Whenever you make a submission you > should post the output in the request. I had actually done an rpmlint on it: [makerpm@centosvm SPECS]$ rpmlint -i sipcalc.spec ../SRPMS/sipcalc-1.1.4-1.src.rpm 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [makerpm@centosvm SPECS]$ rpmlint --version rpmlint version 0.85 Copyright (C) 1999-2007 Frederic Lepied, Mandriva I guess maybe it's an older version since it's a CentOS 5 vm. I'm in the process of setting up a Fedora 11 VM to get more up-to-date packaging tools I'll also make sure I post my rpmlint output in the future. > > - You might want to change the .gz of the manfile to .*, since it is possible > that the compression format changes in the future. > Done > > MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a > duplicate. OK > MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used > consistently. OK > MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK > MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK > MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the > Licensing Guidelines. OK > MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. > OK > MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as > provided in the spec URL. OK > MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK > MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A > MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK > MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A > MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package > that owns the directory. OK > MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK > MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK > MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK > MUST: Clean section exists. OK > MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A > > MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect > runtime of application. NEEDSWORK > - Add ChangeLog to %doc. > Done > MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A > MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A > MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A > MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files > ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A > MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base > package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A > MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A > MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A > MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK > MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK > SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK > SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from > upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK > SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK Updated version posted. [makerpm@centosvm SPECS]$ rpmlint -i sipcalc.spec ../SRPMS/sipcalc-1.1.4-2.src.rpm 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- 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