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=566411 Kalev Lember <kalev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Kalev Lember <kalev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-03-13 17:02:09 EST --- The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package reviews recently, please consider doing one. Fedora review umit-1.0-0.2.RC.fc12.src.rpm 2010-03-13 + OK ! needs attention rpmlint output: umit.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Nmap -> Map, N map, Nap umit.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) frontend -> fronted, front end, front-end umit.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Nmap -> Map, N map, Nap umit.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) frontend -> fronted, front end, front-end 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. ! rpmlint warning about "frontend" is correct and it should be changed to "front-end". The other spelling error is just harmless noise. + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + Spec file name matches the base package name + The package follows the Packaging Guidelines + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The license field in the spec file matches the actual license + The package contains the license files (COPYING, COPYING_HIGWIDGETS) + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible + Upstream sources match sources in the srpm. md5sum: e096ac3795017ba87be4ed569c520be8 umit-1.0RC.tar.gz e096ac3795017ba87be4ed569c520be8 Download/umit-1.0RC.tar.gz + The package builds in koji n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires look sane + The spec file handles locales properly + Packages does not bundle copies of system libraries n/a Does not use Prefix: /usr + Package owns all directories it creates + No duplicate files in %files + Permissions are properly set and %files has %defattr + %clean contains rm -rf %{buildroot} + Consistent use of macros + Package contains code or permissible content n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage ! Files marked %doc should not affect package %{_docdir}/%{name} shouldn't be marked as %doc because the content affects package runtime (an error is displayed clicking Help->Help if the files don't exist). n/a Header files should be in -devel n/a Static libraries should be in -static n/a Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base n/a Packages should not contain libtool .la files + Packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + Packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages + Filenames must be valid UTF-8 Please fix frontend -> front-end and remove the %doc before importing it into CVS. Those are minor issues and otherwise the package looks good. 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