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=568386 --- Comment #1 from Nils Philippsen <nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-02-25 11:22:19 EST --- This was obviously missed in the round of merge reviews when they were done. The URL is rather this one: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc//devel/system-config-date/ Anyway: - PASSED: rpmlint: nils@gibraltar:~/devel/fedora-review/system-config-date> rpmlint system-config-date-1.9.53-1.fc13.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. nils@gibraltar:~/devel/fedora-review/system-config-date> rpmlint system-config-date-1.9.53-1.fc13.noarch.rpm system-config-date.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libselinux-python system-config-date.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided timetool system-config-date.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided dateconfig system-config-date.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided timeconfig system-config-date.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided redhat-config-date system-config-date.noarch: W: no-dependency-on usermode 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. - libselinux-python is really the python module of libselinux, this error is bogus - these obsoletes are really long in the tooth and should go - the tool should be converted to using dbus/PolicyKit instead of usermode - GOOD: the package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines - GOOD: the spec file is named correctly - GOOD: the package is licensed properly, meets Licensing Guidelines - GOOD: License: field matches actual license - GOOD: license text included in %doc - GOOD: spec file written in American English - GOOD: spec file is legible - GOOD: sources used to build match upstream - GOOD: package compiles successfully (numerous times in koji) - GOOD: all build dependencies listed - GOOD: spec file handles locales properly - N/A: doesn't store shared library files - GOOD: doesn't bundle system libraries - N/A: package not relocatable - GOOD: owns all directories it creates or depends on packages that do so - BAD: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings: %{_datadir}/system-config-date [...] %{_datadir}/system-config-date/pixmaps/system-config-date.png - GOOD: file permissions set properly, %defattr present - GOOD: package has %clean - GOOD: uses macros consistently - GOOD: package contains code - GOOD: large online help is in (already reviewed) system-config-date-docs - GOOD: %doc doesn't affect runtime - N/A: no header files - N/A: no static libs - N/A: no pkgconfig files - N/A: no library files - N/A: no devel package - GOOD: doesn't contain libtool archives - GOOD: contains *.desktop file which is installed properly - GOOD: package doesn't own files already owned by other packages - GOOD: buildroot is cleaned in %install - GOOD: all filenames are valid UTF-8 --> duplicate file listing needs to be fixed -- 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