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=543840 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-26 06:31:37 EST --- REVIEW: + rpmlint is almows silent: [petro@Sulaco ppc]$ rpmlint udis86-* udis86.ppc: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [petro@Sulaco ppc]$ + 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 (BSD). 0 The source package doesn't include the text of the license(s) in its own file (although it's present in project's SCM). + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source: [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ sha256sum udis86-1.7.tar.gz* 6128d266abcabed6077fdeebd2fbb7fb48eb599efbdae98922de2f6acd82ce3a udis86-1.7.tar.gz 6128d266abcabed6077fdeebd2fbb7fb48eb599efbdae98922de2f6acd82ce3a udis86-1.7.tar.gz.1 [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1945034 + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. + The package (or subpackage) calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. 0 The package does not designed to be relocatable + 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. 0 No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + Header files are in a -devel package. 0 No static libraries. 0 The package does not contain pkgconfig(.pc) files. + The library files that ends in .so (without suffix) are in a -devel package. + 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. 0 Not a GUI application. + 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review