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=507585 --- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-05 09:52:41 EDT --- REVIEW: + rpmlint is silent [petro@Sulaco SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/python-psi-* 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [petro@Sulaco SPECS]$ - The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. However I found two possible issues - it looks like this is a pre-release package, so it probably should be versioned as 0.3.1-0.%{release}.b1, however I'm not sure. The second possible issue is the capitalization of name - perhaps, it would be better to name it as python-PSI. - Please, use %global instead of %define in the very first line of spec. - Please, consider adding examples as %doc + Otherwise, 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. + The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ sha256sum PSI-0.3b1.1.tar.gz* 80a3c917f108e500e1c4381e81dfb4cb42cfa504a3bef69fc6c34144ced3b744 PSI-0.3b1.1.tar.gz 80a3c917f108e500e1c4381e81dfb4cb42cfa504a3bef69fc6c34144ced3b744 PSI-0.3b1.1.tar.gz.1 [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + 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 were 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 contain any .la libtool archives. + 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. Please, comment/fix issues, mentioned above, and I'll continue. -- 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