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=581161 Dominic Hopf <dmaphy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Dominic Hopf <dmaphy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-05-13 19:38:07 EDT --- $ rpmlint cowpatty.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint cowpatty-4.6-2.fc12.src.rpm cowpatty.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. This spelling-error can be ignored. "pre-shared key" is a correct and common term. $ rpmlint cowpatty-4.6-2.fc12.x86_64.rpm cowpatty-debuginfo-4.6-2.fc12.x86_64.rpm cowpatty.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. The spelling-error is okay, 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: 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: 2dc09d725e4131a68a33c8717d3a7317e5616df2 [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 %{buildroot} [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] %{buildroot} 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 [!] Package should compile and build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures. tested build with koji, does not work, see below [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 be fixed=== * There is a file radiotap.h which license is not GPLv2. According to the Packaging Guidelines [1] you will have to handle that in the License: tag field and add a comment above: # The entire source code is GPLv2+ except radiotap.h which is BSD License: GPLv2 and BSD * The package does not build with koji. There are some issues with the Makefile which prevent the build from working properly with the smp flags. I suggest to remove the smp flags temporarily to work around the issue: make CFLAGS="%{optflags} -DOPENSSL" Ideally this should be fixed by upstream. I will have another look on this issue these days. Until it is finally resolved the above mentioned workaround is appropriate I think. Anything else looks good so far, so the package is APPROVED. Remember to fix the mentioned issues first before checking in the specfile into CVS. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios -- 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