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=455622 Satya Komaragiri <skomarag@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |skomarag@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #3 from Satya Komaragiri <skomarag@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-08-21 08:14:57 EDT --- Unofficial review rpmlint output: $ rpmlint scriptaculous-js-1.8.1-1.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint ../SPECS/scriptaculous-js.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint scriptaculous-js-1.8.1-1.fc11.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint scriptaculous-js-tests-1.8.1-1.fc11.noarch.rpm scriptaculous-js-tests.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Warning can be ignored ------- Builds successfully on Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1619781 ------- $ rpm -i scriptaculous-js-1.8.1-1.src.rpm warning: user dmalcolm does not exist - using root warning: group dmalcolm does not exist - using root warning: user dmalcolm does not exist - using root warning: group dmalcolm does not exist - using root warning: user dmalcolm does not exist - using root warning: group dmalcolm does not exist - using root $ du -sh scriptaculous-js-1.8.1-1.fc11.noarch.rpm 92K scriptaculous-js-1.8.1-1.fc11.noarch.rpm $ du -sh scriptaculous-js-tests-1.8.1-1.fc11.noarch.rpm 84K scriptaculous-js-tests-1.8.1-1.fc11.noarch.rpm -------- list: [x] Rpmlink output pasted above. [x] Naming guidelines are followed. [x] Spec file from spec link matches spec in srpm. [x] License checked. [x] The package meets the packaging guidelines. [x] The license file is included in %doc. [x] The spec file is written in American English. [x] The spec file for the package is legible. [x] The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source. [x] The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms. [x] A package owns all directories that it creates. [x] No file is listed more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. [x] Consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains only permissible content. [x] Files listed in %doc do not affect the runtime of the application. [x] Package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [x] At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. [x] All file names in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. (The point from the MUST list of review guidelines that are left out here do not apply in this case.) --------- [x] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x] Subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. (The point from the SHOULD list of review guidelines that are left out here do not apply in this case.) -------- x: OKay -- 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