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=504671 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Colin Kissa <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-08-21 14:17:41 EDT --- Yep that's correct, that's the screenshot. And you are welcome. FIX: rpmlint must be run on every package rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/i586/pocketsphinx-* rpmbuild/SRPMS/pocketsphinx-0.5.1-2.fc11.src.rpm rpmbuild/SPECS/pocketsphinx.spec pocketsphinx.i586: E: zero-length /usr/share/pocketsphinx/model/lm/turtle/turtle.handdict pocketsphinx-libs.i586: W: no-documentation pocketsphinx-plugin.i586: W: no-documentation pocketsphinx-python.i586: W: no-documentation 7 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. Based on the README turtle.handdict can be safely removed OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines OK: The spec file name must match the base package OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license FIX: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license According to the copying file the gstreamer plugin is LGPLv2 so you should be using BSD and LGPLv2 OK: License text included OK: The spec file must be written in American English OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source sha256sum pocketsphinx-0.5.1.tar.bz2 rpmbuild/SOURCES/pocketsphinx-0.5.1.tar.bz2 3c939b806db9a1928100730a08cdf4dc40a70dc4f2df32f00a58838fe0a7dfd9 pocketsphinx-0.5.1.tar.bz2 3c939b806db9a1928100730a08cdf4dc40a70dc4f2df32f00a58838fe0a7dfd9 rpmbuild/SOURCES/pocketsphinx-0.5.1.tar.bz2 OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture OK: ExcludeArch OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires N\A: The spec file MUST handle locales properly OK: Must call ldconfig in %post and %postun N\A: If the package is designed to be relocatable OK: A package must own all directories that it creates OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once OK: Permissions on files must be set properly OK: Each package must have a %clean section OK: Each package must consistently use macros OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content N\A: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application OK: Header files must be in a -devel package N\A: Static libraries must be in a -static package OK: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' OK: Library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package OK: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package Requires the lib subpackage. OK: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives N\A: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 Fix the lint error and License and its good to go, you will need to push sphinxbase first though. -- 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