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=585205 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx Version|13 |rawhide AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-05-07 05:07:10 EDT --- REVIEW (using link below): http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/python-debian/python-debian-0.1.16-2.el6.src.rpm Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is almost silent: Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/noarch/python-debian-0.1.16-2.fc12.noarch.rpm python-debian.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US debtags -> deb tags, deb-tags, debtors python-debian.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US changelog -> change log, change-log, changeling python-debian.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pdiffs -> diffs, p diffs, pontiffs python-debian.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dsc -> dc, disc, doc python-debian.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ar -> AR, Ar, at 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: All these warnings should be omitted. + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (GPLv2+ and GPLv3+). 0 The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is NOT included in %doc, because it was not included into upstream's tarball. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. - The sources used to build the package, DOES NOT match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum python-debian_0.1.16.tar.gz* e920dda1fbdf2fdb9ceaed61fb13a231786ef55615584190cb3973c277460f0b python-debian_0.1.16.tar.gz 8454129b4624974f560bf6597052c9b3e9a072a0fe4664b61a9834e2dabc65f4 python-debian_0.1.16.tar.gz.1 Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: Please, fix this issue. + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + The package is not designed to be relocatable. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. 0 No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. 0 No header files. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1). 0 No devel sub-package. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not a GUI application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Please, fix the only issue, and I'll continue. -- 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