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=529024 Garrett Holmstrom <gholms.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |gholms.fedora@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #10 from Garrett Holmstrom <gholms.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-16 01:07:12 EST --- I'm not an approved packager yet, so I'll give you an informal review in hopes that it will help get this request moving again. See below for rpmlint output ok - Package meets naming guidelines ok - Spec file matches base package name NO - Meets Packaging Guidelines ok - License (GPLv2+) ok - License field in spec matches ok - License file included in package ok - Spec in American English ok - Spec is legible ok - Sources match upstream md5sum: 31914926b70230c4ac0eacea95fed5b7 GNUsTicker.tar.gz 31914926b70230c4ac0eacea95fed5b7 GNUsTicker.tar.gz.upstream ok - BuildRequires correct na - Spec handles locales/find_lang na - Package has .so files in %{_libdir} and runs ldconfig in %post and %postun ok - Package does not bundle system libs na - Package relocatability is justified ok - No duplicate files in %files ok - Spec has %defattr in each %files section ok - File permissions are sane ok - Spec has a correct %clean section ok - Spec has rm -rf %{buildroot} at top of %install ok - Spec has consistant macro usage ok - Package is code or permissible content na - Building for earlier than F9 and spec has correct buildroot ok - File names valid UTF-8 ok - %doc files don't affect runtime na - Headers go in -devel package na - Static libs go in -static package ok - Package contains no .la files no - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file installed w/ desktop-file-install (Unnecessary: panel applet) ok - Package owns all directories it creates ok - Package's files and directories don't conflict with others' ok - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target ok - Compiles and builds on at least one arch ok - Compiles and builds on all archs or has ExcludeArch + bugs filed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1925747 SHOULD Items: na - Query upstream for license inclusion no - Translations of description and summary ok - Builds in mock ok - Scriptlets are sane na - Non-devel subpackages require base w/ fully-versioned dependency na - pkgconfig (.pc) files go in -devel package ok - Latest version ok - Has dist tag ok - No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin ######################################## * rpmlint output SPECS/GNUsTicker.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag GNUsTicker.src: W: no-buildroot-tag As far as I know this is fine if you never plan to build this on el5, but on the other hand it doesn't hurt to include a BuildRoot line anyway. GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/widgets/__init__.py GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/feed_plugins/__init__.py GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/feed_plugins/pop3.py GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/extractors.py Either mark these non-executable or add shebang lines to them. * Meets packaging guidelines Drop the explicit Requires from the spec file - rpmbuild will pick up required libraries for you. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires * Other comments This program is ancient. Its last commit was four years ago. Do you plan to maintain it with bugfixes and the like yourself? -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review