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=563013 Dominic Hopf <dmaphy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Dominic Hopf <dmaphy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-05-13 17:59:53 EDT --- $ rpmlint gnome-applet-remmina.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint gnome-applet-remmina-0.7.3-1.fc14.src.rpm gnome-applet-remmina.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US netbooks -> net books, net-books, pocketbooks 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. This warning can be ignored. Netbook is a common term. $ rpmlint gnome-applet-remmina-0.7.3-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm gnome-applet-remmina-debuginfo-0.7.3-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm gnome-applet-remmina.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US netbooks -> net books, net-books, pocketbooks 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. 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: GPLv2+ [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: 6bbbe59b8fe02b851e126526c385be7c8989ba79 [x] Package compiles successfully [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires [x] Specfile handles locales properly [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required [-] 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 === [x] 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 [x] Package should compile and build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures. tested build with koji [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 The package looks good, I could not find any issues. Thanks very much Naveen for your informal review, seems you already discovered any issue and everything is fixed. The 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