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=525389 --- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-09-25 03:44:55 EDT --- Assuming, that FE-LEGAL probably will be unblocked, here is my REVIEW: * rpmlint is not silent. [petro@Sulaco ~]$ rpmlint ~/fuse/sshfs/work/Desktop/madwimax-0.1.1-1.fc11.ppc.rpm madwimax.ppc: E: summary-too-long User-space driver for mobile WiMAX (802.16e) devices based on Samsung CMC-730 chip madwimax.ppc: E: description-line-too-long madWiMAX is a reverse-engineered Linux driver for mobile WiMAX (802.16e) devices based on Samsung CMC-730 chip. These devices are currently supported: madwimax.ppc: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/udev/rules.d/z60_madwimax.rules 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. [petro@Sulaco ~]$ Please, shorten these lines. + 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 must match 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 madwimax-0.1.1.tar.gz* 17ac297934654663586df837dcff2bd6d3bbabddd76efdffa26713b07e08ad5f madwimax-0.1.1.tar.gz 17ac297934654663586df837dcff2bd6d3bbabddd76efdffa26713b07e08ad5f madwimax-0.1.1.tar.gz.1 [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See koji logs above. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + The packages does NOT contain copies of system libraries. + 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 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). [26] + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Ok, let's wait for the reaction from the Legal Team. -- 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