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=566560 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-05-13 10:26:37 EDT --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is almost silent Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/libaesgm-* libaesgm.ppc: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) cryptographic -> cryptographer, cryptography, cryptogram libaesgm.ppc: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic -> cryptographer, cryptography, cryptogram libaesgm-devel.ppc: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: These messages may be ignored. + 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 (BSD). 0 The package does not include the text of the license(s) in its own file. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL: Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum aes-src-29-04-09.zip* 0b6d09c741dcd1c100cdcdd8b5f5bf85cfe54bdd7bea1f96916c2471280ddf03 aes-src-29-04-09.zip 0b6d09c741dcd1c100cdcdd8b5f5bf85cfe54bdd7bea1f96916c2471280ddf03 aes-src-29-04-09.zip.1 Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2185723 0 No additional build dependencies. 0 No need to handle locales. + The package calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + The package isn't 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 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. + Header files are in a -devel package. 0 No static libraries. + The library file that ends in .so (without suffix) is in a -devel package. + The devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} + The packages does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not a GUI application. + The packages does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + All filenames in the packages are valid UTF-8. I've got only one simple note - if you plan to provide package also for EPEl, then you will need to add rm -rf %{buildroot} in the %install section. This package 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