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=226213 --- Comment #3 from Karel Klíč <kklic@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-12-10 06:21:15 EDT --- [YES] source files match upstream: 7df692e3186109cc00db6825b777201e openjade-1.3.2.tar.gz [YES] package meets naming and versioning guidelines [YES] specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently [YES] dist tag is present [YES] build root is correct [YES] license field matches the actual license [YES] license is open source-compatible [YES] license text included in package [YES] latest version is being packaged [YES] BuildRequires are proper [YES] compiler flags are appropriate [YES] %clean is present [YES] package builds in mock [YES] debuginfo package looks complete [NO] rpmlint is silent $rpmlint ./openjade-1.3.2-35.fc13.src.rpm openjade.src: W: no-url-tag openjade.src:5: E: prereq-use sgml-common >= 0.5 openjade.src:15: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes jade openjade.src:16: W: unversioned-explicit-provides jade openjade.src:217: W: macro-in-%changelog %doc 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. $rpmlint ./openjade-1.3.2-35.fc13.i686.rpm openjade.i686: W: no-url-tag openjade.i686: W: obsolete-not-provided openjade-devel openjade.i686: W: self-obsoletion jade obsoletes jade 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Prereq is used, but Requires (or BuildRequires?) should be used "URL: http://openjade.sourceforge.net/"; should be added to the SPEC file. [NO] final provides and requires look sane It should probably not contain both "Provides:jade" and "Obsoletes:jade" [OK] no %check is present [OK] no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths in app package It includes .so.0, but not .so in the app package. [YES] owns the directories it creates [YES] doesn't own any directories it shouldn't [YES] no duplicates in %files [YES] file permissions are appropriate [YES] scriptlets ok [YES] code, not content [YES] documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary [YES] %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package [YES] no headers [YES] no pkgconfig files [YES] no libtool .la droppings [YES] not a GUI app The following code is no longer necessary, because .la files are not packaged: # Fix up libtool libraries find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -name '*.la' | \ xargs perl -p -i -e "s|-L$RPM_BUILD_DIR[\w/.-]*||g" -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review