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=515143 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-08-03 08:54:11 EDT --- I "sponsored" you. Don't hesitate to contact me directly via xmpp or email ( lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx ) for any question regarding rules of slightly complex role-playing game, named "Fedora package maintainership" REVIEW: + rpmlint is silent [petro@Workplace Desktop]$ rpmlint mtkbabel-0.8-1.fc11.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 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. + 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 sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ sha256sum mtkbabel-0.8.tar.gz* 591597c0787822c9fd56c7a3da214e81edd3c98f32d16858221e02dfc0f63779 mtkbabel-0.8.tar.gz 591597c0787822c9fd56c7a3da214e81edd3c98f32d16858221e02dfc0f63779 mtkbabel-0.8.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=1575556 + 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 must consistently use macros. So, I advice you to change "rm -rf %{buildroot}" to "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" in the %install section. + The package contains code, or permissible content. + Anything, 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 rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. Please make a last change mentioned above regarding simultaneous using of %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT (easyfix). Fix it and proceed with the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CVS_admin_requests Please, also use 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