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=566729 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-03-09 06:37:42 EST --- REVIEW: + rpmlint is almost silent: Workplace ~: rpmlint Desktop/CharLS-* CharLS-devel.i686: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Workplace ~: + 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. + 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, as provided in the spec URL. Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum CharLS-1.0_beta.zip ~/Desktop/CharLS-1.0_beta.zip c6fdbdb48d18205afaf7ae4b9e73984ee4bf927cec99a86c3c0ad3e2021e8c99 CharLS-1.0_beta.zip c6fdbdb48d18205afaf7ae4b9e73984ee4bf927cec99a86c3c0ad3e2021e8c99 /home/petro/Desktop/CharLS-1.0_beta.zip Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See koji link above. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines. 0 No need to handle locales. + The package 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 own 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. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. The %files section includes a %defattr(...) line. + 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 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} + 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 the package 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