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=571225 Dominic Hopf <dmaphy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Dominic Hopf <dmaphy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-04-05 18:39:49 EDT --- $ rpmbuild -bs petit.spec Erstellt: /home/dmaphy/rpmbuild/SRPMS/petit-1.0.0-1.fc12.src.rpm $ rpmlint petit-1.0.0-1.fc12.src.rpm petit.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) syslog -> systole, slogan, syllogism petit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US syslog -> systole, slogan, syllogism 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. As you wrote before, this warnings can safely be ignored. :) $ rpmlint petit-1.0.0-1.fc12.noarch.rpm petit.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) syslog -> systole, slogan, syllogism petit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US syslog -> systole, slogan, syllogism 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. See above. Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [x] Specfile name matches %{name}.spec [x] Package seems to meet Packaging Guidelines [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: Fedora 12/x86_64 [x] Rpmlint output: source RPM: see above binary RPM: see above [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] License in specfile matches actual License and meets Licensing Guidelines License: GPLv3+ [x] License file is included in %doc. [x] Specfile is legible and written in AE [x] Sourcefile in the Package is the same as provided in the mentioned Source SHA1SUM of Source: c9bec12d98b692e198d2c4715216aa590055128a [x] Package compiles successfully [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires [-] Specfile handles locales properly [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required [x] Package owns directorys it creates [-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not list a file more than once in the %files listing [x] %files section includes %defattr and permissions are set properly [x] %clean section is there and contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x] Macros are consistently used [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage [x] Program runs properly without files listed in %doc [-] Header files are in a -devel package [-] Static libraries are in a -static package [-] Package requires pkgconfig if .pc files are present [-] .so-files are put into a -devel subpackage [-] Subpackages include fully versioned dependency for the base package [-] Any libtool archives (*.la) are removed [-] contains desktop file (%{name}.desktop) if it is a GUI application [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is removed at beginning of %install [-] Filenames are encoded in UTF-8 === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [?] Package contains latest upstream version [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] non-English translations for description and summary [x] Package builds in mock Tested on: F12/x86_64 [-] Package should compile and build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures. package is noarch [x] Program runs [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] pkgconfig (*.pc) files are placed in a -devel package [-] require package providing a file instead of the file itself no files outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin are required Issues to point out: - It's better to list the manpage as '%{_mandir}/man1/petit.1.*' to prevent problems in case the compress algorithm changes. Well, this is not blocking the review but I'd like to see it fixed before you request CVS access. - I could not find out if there is any newer upstream version of petit than 1.0.0, the website doesn't provide information about that or I completely missed it. Also, svn update of the sources within the tarball is not possible. - Removing the .svn dirs should be upstreams job, right before putting sources into a tarball. You might want to contact upstream to suggest 'svn export' before releasing. :) Your package looks good anyway and is 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