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=509159 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-29 07:19:25 EDT --- Koji successful scratchbuild for F-11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1776218 Sources, used to build package, are matching upstream ones: [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ sha256sum pragmarc.zip* 6c80906ed7b64fb1c065f1a7a9331fa644ce1c2f34e807dd794d74db92201da9 pragmarc.zip 6c80906ed7b64fb1c065f1a7a9331fa644ce1c2f34e807dd794d74db92201da9 pragmarc.zip.1 [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ REVIEW: + rpmlint is silent: [petro@Workplace tmp]$ rpmlint PragmARC- PragmARC-20060427-4.fc11.i586.rpm PragmARC-debuginfo-20060427-4.fc11.i586.rpm PragmARC-devel-20060427-4.fc11.i586.rpm [petro@Workplace tmp]$ rpmlint PragmARC-* 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [petro@Workplace tmp]$ + 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. (GPL with exceptions) + 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 are matching the upstream source. + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + The package (or subpackage) calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. + 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. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + Development-related files are in a -devel package. + The library file that end in .so (without suffix) is in a -devel package. [20] + The devel sub-package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} + 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. 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