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=530649 Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |steve.traylen@xxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #6 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> 2010-03-19 15:49:42 EDT --- Review: massxper Date: 19th March 2010 Koji Build: Seems to be timing out :-( * COMMENT: rpmlint output $ rpmlint ../SRPMS/massxpert-2.1.0-1.fc14.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/massxpert-doc-2.1.0-1.fc14.noarch.rpm ../RPMS/x86_64/massxpert-2.1.0-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm ../RPMS/x86_64/massxpert-debuginfo-2.1.0-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm massxpert.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US spectrometric -> spectrometer, spectroscopic, spectroscopy massxpert.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US spectrometric -> spectrometer, spectroscopic, spectroscopy * YES: Named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. * YES: spec file name same as base package %{name}. * YES: Packaging Guidelines. Very clean packages * YES: Approved license in .spec file. GPLv3 * YES: License on Source code. Extremly clear licensing in source as GPLv3. * YES: Include LICENSE file or similar if it exist. COPYING file present. * YES: Written in American English. * YES: Spec file legible. * YES: Included source must match upstream source. $ md5sum massxpert-2.1.0.tar.gz SOURCES/massxpert-2.1.0.tar.gz 50ee3fecfac0ad047004748971a1f1c0 massxpert-2.1.0.tar.gz 50ee3fecfac0ad047004748971a1f1c0 SOURCES/massxpert-2.1.0.tar.gz * YES: Build on one architecture. mock * YES: Not building on an architecture must highlighted. mock. * YES: Build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. mock. * NO: Handle locales properly. /usr/share/massxpert/locales /usr/share/massxpert/locales/massxpert_fr.qm could be handled better. * YES: ldconfig must be called on shared libs. No shared libs. * YES: No bundled copies of system libraries. * YES: Package must state why relocatable if relocatable. not relocatable. * MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates /usr/share/applications/ owned by filesystem /usr/share/pixmaps/ ownded by filesystem. * YES: No duplicate files in %files listings. * YES: Permissions on files must be set properly. %defattr %defattr(-,root,root,-) * YES: %clean section contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). * YES: Each package must consistently use macros. * YES: The package must contain code, or permissable content. * YES: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. Been put in seperate noarch package. * YES: %doc must not affect the runtime of the application. * YES: Header files must be in a -devel package. - no header files. * YES: Static libraries must be in a -static package. no statics. * YES: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' no .pc files. * YES: Then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. .so files but these are a plugin. * YES: devel packages must require the exact base package no -devel. * YES: No .la libtool archives * YES: GUI apps should have %{name}.desktop file * YES: No files or directories already owned by other packages. * YES: %install must run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). * YES: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. ----------- Comments: Could you rewrite the description just to avoid the word spectrometric? Work to be done: Just that one locale file should be handled. -- 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