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=519071 --- Comment #7 from Dominic Hopf <dmaphy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-08-31 19:02:02 EDT --- No Problem, I was able now to have another look on your package. :) $ rpmlint wiipresent.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint wiipresent-0.7.5.2-3.fc11.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint wiipresent-0.7.5.2-3.fc11.x86_64.rpm wiipresent-debuginfo-0.7.5.2-3.fc11.x86_64.rpm wiipresent.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.7.5.2-2 ['0.7.5.2-3.fc11', '0.7.5.2-3'] NOTE: You forgot to update your %changelog. MUSTs ----- OK: packaged is named according to the package naming guidelines OK: specfile name matches %{name}.spec OK: package seems to meet packaging guidelines OK: license in specfile matches actual license and meets licensing guidelines OK: license file is included in %doc OK: specfile is written in AE OK: specfile is legible OK: sourcefile in the package is the same as provided in the mentioned source, md5sum fits OK: package compiles successfully OK: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires N/A: package handles locales properly there are no locales installed with this package N/A: call ldconfig in %post and %postun there is no binary installed with this package OK: package is not designed to be relocatable OK: package owns directorys it creates OK: does not list a file more than once in the %files listing OK: %files section includes %defattr and permissions are set properly OK: %clean section is there and contains rm -rf %{buildroot} OK: macros are consistently used OK: package contains code N/A: subpackage for large documentation files there are no large documentation files OK: program runs properly without files listed in %doc N/A: header files are in a -devel package there are no header files N/A: static libraries are in a -static package there are no static libs N/A: require pkgconfig if package contains a pkgconfig(.pc) there is no pkgconfig file N/A: put .so-files into -devel package if there are library files with suffix there is no library with suffix, in fact there isn't any library N/A: devel package includes fully versioned dependency for the base package there is no devel package N/A: any libtool archives are removed there are no libtool archives OK: contains desktop file if it is a GUI application OK: package does not own any files or directories owned by other packages OK: buildroot is removed at beginning of %install N/A: filenames are encoded in UTF-8 not necessary since there are no non-ASCII filenames SHOULD ------ N/A: non-English translations for description and summary there are no other languages supported by this package, in fact it does not provide any localization. I assume localizations are not needed for this package. OK: package builds in mock OK: package builds into binary rpms for all supported architectures N/A: program runs I did not test myself if the program works as it should N/A: subpackages contain fully versioned dependency for the base package there are no subpackages N/A: pkgconfig file is placed in a devel package there is no pkgconfig file N/A: require package providing a file instead of the file itself no files outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin are required BLOCKERS: - As written above, you forgot to update your %changelog, i'd like to see this added before approving Just as hints: - Indenting the arguments for desktop-file-install would make the spec i bit more legible imho. It's on your's if you like to do so. - I don't see why you are using a wildcard for the manpage, I think writing 'wiipresent.1.gz' would do the job also. If there is no specific reason for that I would recommend you to fix that with your next release. -- 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