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=560728 --- Comment #5 from Kalev Lember <kalev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-03-18 05:03:41 EDT --- Fedora review uperf-1.0.3-0.1.beta.fc12.src.rpm 2010-03-18 + OK ! needs attention rpmlint output: uperf.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) modelling -> modeling, model ling, model-ling uperf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US modelling -> modeling, model ling, model-ling uperf.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) modelling -> modeling, model ling, model-ling uperf.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US modelling -> modeling, model ling, model-ling 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. I think rpmlint warning about "modelling" -> "modeling" is wrong. AFAIK both "modelling" and "modeling" are fine for US English. You can change this if you want to get rid of the rpmlint warning, but I believe it to be just 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 license file (COPYING) only contains the following lines: > All right reserved > Sun Microsystems Please query upstream to include a GPLv3 license file instead, but this isn't a review blocker. All source files have correct GPLv3 headers, leaving no interpretation for actual license. + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible + Upstream sources match sources in the srpm. md5sum: 428035a33729a877f1ecd4ced8911a6f uperf-1.0.3-beta.tar.gz 428035a33729a877f1ecd4ced8911a6f Download/uperf-1.0.3-beta.tar.gz + The package builds in koji n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires look sane n/a The spec file handles locales properly + Package 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 (see below) 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 n/a 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 > # Included in doc/workloads > %{__rm} -rf %{buildroot}%{_datadir} I think it would be better to install the .xml workload profile files in %{_datadir}/uperf/. The files aren't just examples; they are pretty useful if you want to quickly try out uperf. Now if some user of uperf sets up a script to use these .xml files from the current location (/usr/share/doc/uperf-1.0.3), he needs to hardcode that directory in the script file. However, putting these profile files in %{_datadir}/uperf/ instead has the benefit that a) the directory name remains the same even if you update to uperf 1.0.4, b) it's more standard location, as both archlinux pkgbuild and an opensuse rpm I found put the files in /usr/share/uperf/ instead. Also, /usr/share/doc/uperf-1.0.3/workloads/ currently contains Makefile* files which need to be removed. -- 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