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=587315 Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2010-05-06 11:51:32 EDT --- rpmlint output: $ rpmlint pmars-* pmars.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) corewar -> core war, core-war, forewarn pmars.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US corewar -> core war, core-war, forewarn pmars.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US redcode -> red code, red-code, redcoat pmars.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti pmars.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) corewar -> core war, core-war, forewarn pmars.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US corewar -> core war, core-war, forewarn pmars.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US redcode -> red code, red-code, redcoat pmars.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Please fix the spelling error. Also, please place the temporary doc dir stuff in %prep, after the application of the patches. MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. OK MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK MUST: Clean section exists. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. ~OK - Although this is an X application, it is operated purely from the command prompt (it needs a warrior file as input). MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK 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