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=553208 Matej Cepl <mcepl@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |mcepl@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Matej Cepl <mcepl@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-07 12:20:48 EDT --- + GOOD: rpmlint is happy bradford:rpmbuild$ rpmlint -i SRPMS/perl-OpenGL-0.62-1.fc12.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. bradford:rpmbuild$ rpmlint -i RPMS/x86_64/perl-OpenGL-* 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. bradford:rpmbuild$ + GOOD: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . + GOOD: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + GOOD: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. + GOOD: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Actually it should be GPLv2 only (not GPLv2+ ... cannot find anywhere "or later"). + GOOD: COPYRIGHT file is in %doc. + GOOD: The spec file is written in American English. + GOOD: The spec file for the package is legible. + GOOD: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5: 905407fa94ca0fc9c1e0ae7c140a4272 + GOOD: The package successfully compiles and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. yes, builds on x86_64/F12 + GOOD: it's noarch so no issues with other architectures. + GOOD: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + GOOD: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. No locale support. + GOOD: %post and %postun scripts OK no scripts + GOOD: not relocatable + GOOD: A package owns all directories that it creates. I don't like this in %files: %{perl_vendorlib}/Perl/ Is this correct? Why not just %{perl_vendorlib}/Perl/Tidy.pm + GOOD: A package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. + GOOD: Permissions on files are set automatically. + GOOD: Each package have a %clean section. + GOOD: Each package consistently use macros. + GOOD: The package contains code, or permissable content. + GOOD: No large documentation files, so no a -doc subpackage. + GOOD: Files registered in %doc does not affect the runtime of the application. + GOOD: No header files. + GOOD: No static libraries. + GOOD: No pkgconfig(.pc) files. + GOOD: .so file is provided in -devel package. no .so outside of Perllands + GOOD: Correct Requires in -devel subpackage. no -devel package + GOOD: No .la libtool archives. + GOOD: Packages does not contain GUI applications. + GOOD: Packages does not own files or directories owned by other packages. + GOOD: Runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install + GOOD: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. + GOOD: Includes license text. 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