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=575480 Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |steve.traylen@xxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |steve.traylen@xxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> 2010-03-21 12:07:09 EDT --- Hi Miroslav, First I think its much easier for reviewers if you always bump the release numbers during the review. Here's a review: Review: imvirt Date: 21st March 2011 Mock Build: F14, x86_64 builds. * YES: rpmlint output rpmlint SPECS/imvirt.spec RPMS/x86_64/imvirt-* SRPMS/imvirt-0.9.0-pre1.fc14.src.rpm imvirt.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) virtualizations -> conceptualizations, visualizations, actualization imvirt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualization -> actualization, visualization, contextualization imvirt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualized -> ritualized, actualized, virtual imvirt.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) virtualizations -> conceptualizations, visualizations, actualization imvirt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualization -> actualization, visualization, contextualization imvirt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualized -> ritualized, actualized, virtual 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. All of these words are in very common usage within this context. They will become words soon enough. * YES: Named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. * YES: spec file name same as base package %{name}. * NO: Packaging Guidelines. The Source tar ball is imvirt-0.9.0-pre1.tar.gz which is presumably a pre-release to 0.9.0. This needs to be handled in the release. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages * YES: Approved license in .spec file. GPLv2+ * COMMENT: License on Source code. CLearly licensed this way. * YES: Include LICENSE file or similar if it exist. COPYFILE file present. * YES: Written in American English. * YES: Spec file legible. * YES: Included source must match upstream source. $ md5sum imvirt-0.9.0-pre1.tar.gz ../SOURCES/imvirt-0.9.0-pre1.tar.gz 698d022b778aaf0d07ba67fa357da464 imvirt-0.9.0-pre1.tar.gz 698d022b778aaf0d07ba67fa357da464 ../SOURCES/imvirt-0.9.0-pre1.tar.gz Is the Source URL possible to define exactly the example here? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Sourceforge.net * YES: Build on one architecture. * YES: Not building on an architecture must highlighted. * YES: Build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. * YES: Handle locales properly. * YES: ldconfig must be called on shared libs. * YES: No bundled copies of system libraries. * YES: Package must state why relocatable if relocatable. * YES: A package must own all directories that it creates * YES: No duplicate files in %files listings. * YES: Permissions on files must be set properly. %defattr * 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. No large docs. * YES: %doc must not affect the runtime of the application. * YES: Header files must be in a -devel package. NO headers. * YES: Static libraries must be in a -static package. No statics. * YES: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' No pkgconfig * YES: Then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. No .sos * YES: devel packages must require the exact base package None * YES: No .la libtool archives None * YES: GUI apps should have %{name}.desktop file No gui * YES: No files or directories already owned by other packages. None are. * YES: %install must run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). It does. * YES: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. Yes. So just handling of the fact this is a pre-release and if you can change the URL do so. -- 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