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=544540 --- Comment #1 from Dominic Hopf <dmaphy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-12-05 09:38:59 EDT --- $ rpmlint genesis.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint genesis-0.4.2.1-1.fc12.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint genesis-0.4.2.1-1.fc12.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [x] Specfile name matches %{name}.spec [x] Package seems to meet Packaging Guidelines [-] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one supported architecture. This is a noarch package. [x] Rpmlint output: source RPM: empty binary RPM: empty [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] License in specfile matches actual License and meets Licensing Guidelines License: GPLv2+ and GPLv3, results in GPLv3 [-] License file is included in %doc. There is no specific license file, the license text is included "hard coded" in the about dialogue [x] Specfile is legible and written in AE [x] Sourcefile in the Package is the same as provided in the mentioned Source SHA1SUM of Source: d9e4b3218ee8a1390ded665905a095146c647aab [x] Package compiles successfully [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires [x] Specfile handles locales properly [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required [x] Package owns directorys it creates [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not list a file more than once in the %files listing [x] %files section includes %defattr and permissions are set properly [x] %clean section is there and contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [!] Macros are consistently used [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage [x] Program runs properly without files listed in %doc [-] Header files are in a -devel package [-] Static libraries are in a -static package [-] Package requires pkgconfig if .pc files are present [-] .so-files are put into a -devel subpackage [-] Subpackages include fully versioned dependency for the base package [-] Any libtool archives (*.la) are removed [x] contains desktop file (%{name}.desktop) if it is a GUI application [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is removed at beginning of %install [-] Filenames are encoded in UTF-8 === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Package contains latest upstream version [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] non-English translations for description and summary [x] Package builds in mock Tested on: F12/x86_64 [x] Package should compile and build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures. tested build with koji [x] Program runs [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] pkgconfig (*.pc) files are placed in a -devel package [-] require package providing a file instead of the file itself no files outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin are required Issues found: * You're using $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in line 51 and line 67, but %{buildroot} in line 60 and 61. This affects required consistency of used macros. * The program is translated into several languages, it would be nice if there also would be Summarys and descriptions for those languages provided by the program Once the macro-consistency issue is fixed I will approve this package. Everything else looks good. Very nice work Andrea! -- 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