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=570258 --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-03-04 01:37:08 EST --- Notes: * Url is wrong. Correct one is - http://www.tecgraf.puc-rio.br/~diego/professional/rply/ * The 'convert', 'dump' 'sconvert' utilities are not installed and have very generic names. I suggest you to consider installing them too (with rply_ prefix, for example). REVIEW: - rpmlint is not silent: Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/ppc: rpmlint rply-* rply.ppc: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US endian -> Indian, ending, endive rply.ppc: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.01 ['1.01-1.fc12', '1.01-1'] rply.ppc: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/rply-1.01/LICENSE rply-devel.ppc: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/ppc: * Ignore message about "endian" word. * Add Release (w/o %{?dist}) to version in changelog, e.g. * Wed Mar 03 2010 Mario Ceresa mrceresa@xxxxxxxxx rply 1.01-1 Note "-1" at the end of the string. * I strongly recommend to NOT fix the issue with LICENSE file being not UTF-8 encoded, since it may have legal issues if we'll change licensing information. + 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 (MIT). + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. + 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 Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum rply-1.01.tar.gz* 5fb87562ff47a440e43c035f99c20c1e83b409d2b73a7dafea60fa805bb75d7c rply-1.01.tar.gz 5fb87562ff47a440e43c035f99c20c1e83b409d2b73a7dafea60fa805bb75d7c rply-1.01.tar.gz.1 Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: - The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture, but, unfortunately, it fails to build on x86_64 doe to lib/lib64 issues. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2029873 + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. + The package calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + The package is 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, th package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + Header files are in a -devel package. 0 No static libraries. + The package does not contain pkgconfig(.pc) files + The library files that end 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} + 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 the package are valid UTF-8. OK, please comment/fix issues noted above, and I'll continue. -- 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