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=562388 --- Comment #5 from Dominic Hopf <dmaphy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-02-06 14:32:40 EST --- $ rpmlint pisg.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint pisg-0.72-6.fc12.src.rpm pisg.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US logfiles -> log files, log-files, misfiles 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint /home/dmaphy/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/pisg-0.72-6.fc12.noarch.rpm pisg.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US logfiles -> log files, log-files, misfiles 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. This spelling issue should be fixed before uploading the package to CVS. 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 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: Fedora 12/x86_64 [x] Rpmlint output: source RPM: see above binary RPM: see above [x] Package is not relocatable. [!] License in specfile matches actual License and meets Licensing Guidelines License: GPLv2+, scripts/dropegg.pl is not clear [x] License file is included in %doc. [!] Specfile is legible and written in AE rpmlint claims the spelling of "logfiles". See above. [x] Sourcefile in the Package is the same as provided in the mentioned Source SHA1SUM of Source: be7a535dc1102eede2e43f0046b4d48effb1d18a [x] Package compiles successfully [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires [-] Specfile handles locales properly [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required [x] Package owns directorys it creates [-] 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 [x] 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 [-] 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. this is a noarch package. [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 Found issues: * scripts/dropegg.pl is not written by Morten Brix Pedersen claiming Copyright, but without any licensing hint. You maybe should clarify the license for the file with upstream first. * The "Provides:" for the installed Perl modules are missing. The package is not installable in this state. Installation fails with message: --> Fehlende Abhängigkeit: perl(Pisg::HTMLGenerator) wird benötigt von Paket pisg-0.72-6.fc12.noarch (/pisg-0.72-6.fc12.noarch) Didn't found anything else. Looks good for me. -- 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