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=509158 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #17 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-09-27 14:16:54 EDT --- Ok, understood. Here is my REVIEW: +/- rpmlint isn't silent. [petro@Sulaco SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/noarch/fedora-gnat-project-common-1.2-1.fc11.noarch.rpm fedora-gnat-project-common.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [petro@Sulaco SPECS]$ However this warning may be safely ignored (keeping in mind your notes about common place for GNAT projects). + 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, except the dirty trick with _GNAT_project_dir (fortunately, this would go away then the package hits Fedora packages collection). + The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source. [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ sha256sum fedora-gnat-project-common-1.2.tar.gz* f4f63a0cb90193966e21af236b07fd63b725e80617c26cba98b082ad98067146 fedora-gnat-project-common-1.2.tar.gz f4f63a0cb90193966e21af236b07fd63b725e80617c26cba98b082ad98067146 fedora-gnat-project-common-1.2.tar.gz.1 [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. (ppc) + The package does NOT bundle 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). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. 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