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=514310 --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-29 07:11:08 EDT --- I see the only blocker issue so far - missing "Requires: fuse". The package "fuse" (due to different licensing terms is splitted to fuse and fuse-libs, but rpm can pick up only fuse-libs automatically. Also, I suggest to shorten spec a little - you may replace mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir} install -p -m 755 Fur $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/Fur by the single line ("install" utility can create directories): install -D -p -m 755 Fur $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/Fur Note the "-D" switch. Ok, here is my REVIEW: - rpmlint is not silent. [petro@Sulaco ppc]$ rpmlint FUR-0.4.6-1.fc11.ppc.rpm FUR.ppc: W: invalid-license GPL 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [petro@Sulaco ppc] + 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 (except few issues, noted above). + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines . - The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license (GPLv2) + 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 sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ md5sum FUR-0.4.6.tar.gz* 76688e4b208e33d72e53c0f7dcc59534 FUR-0.4.6.tar.gz 76688e4b208e33d72e53c0f7dcc59534 FUR-0.4.6.tar.gz.1 [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1562071 + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + 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. + Everything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + 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 are valid UTF-8. Please take care of issues. mentioned by me, and I'll finish my review. -- 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