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=553281 --- Comment #13 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-02-22 20:04:41 EST --- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - 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. See below - Sources match upstream md5sum: OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package obey's FHS standard (except for 2 exceptions) See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have sane scriptlets. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version OK - Should not use file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin Issues: 1. For snapshots you shouldn't use the full URL in Source0 (since there isn't one). Instead include a comment or script that generates the tar.gz thats used. 2. There shouldn't be any need for: BuildRequires: gcc Requires: libc.so.6 Please remove 3. Why have the seperate check_packets tar? Are those Makefile changes going to be merged into upstream so this isn't needed moving forward? 4. Nit: the %{__rm} stuff isn't against any guideline, but I would drop all that and just use 'rm' and 'make'. 5. Our friend rpmlint says: netsniff-ng.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linux -> Linux netsniff-ng.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tcpdump -> dumpster, Dumpster, dumpling netsniff-ng.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US syscall -> scallop, systemically, scallion netsniff-ng.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kernelspace -> kernel space, kernel-space, kernels pace netsniff-ng.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace netsniff-ng.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni netsniff-ng.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nagios -> adagios, nagging, Nagoya netsniff-ng.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linux -> Linux netsniff-ng.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tcpdump -> dumpster, Dumpster, dumpling netsniff-ng.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US syscall -> scallop, systemically, scallion netsniff-ng.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kernelspace -> kernel space, kernel-space, kernels pace netsniff-ng.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace netsniff-ng.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni netsniff-ng.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nagios -> adagios, nagging, Nagoya I think all those can be ignored. netsniff-ng.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://netsniff-ng.googlecode.com/files/netsniff-ng-0.5.5.0.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found This one would be fixed by moving to a comment about how to generate the source checkout. (Or getting a final release of this version that has all the fixes you need). -- 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