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=572989 Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-04-02 07:48:48 EDT --- There's a few minor rpmlint bits that need to be fixed but everything else is OK. The job control errors in particular. I think the rest are OK. So I'm approving this but please fix the rpmlint issues before commit. APPROVED - rpmlint output $ rpmlint sugar-paint.spec sugar-paint-27-1.fc12.src.rpm sugar-paint-27-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm sugar-paint-debuginfo-27-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm sugar-paint.spec:10: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities sugar-paint.spec: E: specfile-error sh: line 0: fg: no job control sugar-paint.src: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities sugar-paint.src: E: specfile-error sh: line 0: fg: no job control sugar-paint.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities sugar-paint.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/fill/_fill.so 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings. + package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines + specfile name matches the package base name + package should satisfy packaging guidelines + license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora + license matches the actual package license + latest version packaged + %doc includes license file + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + upstream sources match sources in the srpm d9523e113a725c19753af9e0766bbe00 paint-27.xo + package successfully builds on at least one architecture tested using koji scratch build + BuildRequires list all build dependencies + %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun+ does not use Prefix: /usr + package owns all directories it creates n/a no duplicate files in %files + Package perserves timestamps on install + %defattr line + %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + consistent use of macros + package must contain code or permissible content n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + files marked %doc should not affect package n/a header files should be in -devel n/a static libraries should be in -static n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel n/a devel must require the fully versioned base + 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 + %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc. + filenames must be valid UTF-8 Optional: n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available + reviewer should build the package in mock/koji + the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures n/a review should test the package functions as described + scriptlets should be sane n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel + shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin -- 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