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=599709 Lev Shamardin <shamardin@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|shamardin@xxxxxxxxx |nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Lev Shamardin <shamardin@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-06-09 03:39:35 EDT --- MUST items: * OK - no errors, all warnings can be ignored. See at the end of the review. * OK - package is named according to guidelines. * OK - package spec file is named correctly. * OK - package does meet the packaging guidelines. * OK - package licensed under MIT License * OK - License field in the spec file matches the actual license. * OK - original sources do not provide license text, so it is not included. * OK - spec file is written in American English. * OK - spec file is legible. * OK - the sources for the package match the upstream. 8d75d7f3f659e915e286e1b0fa0e1c4d greenlet-0.3.1.tar.gz 8d75d7f3f659e915e286e1b0fa0e1c4d greenlet-0.3.1.tar.gz.orig * OK - checked that package does compile on i386 and x86_64. * OK - architectures where the package does not work are unknown. * OK - package lists sane BuildRequires. * OK - package does not use locales. * OK - package does not store shared libraries in any of the dynamic linker's default paths. * OK - package does not bundle copies of system libraries. * OK - package is not relocatable. * OK - package owns all directories it creates. * OK - %files listings are correct. * OK - permissons on files are set correctly, %defattr is included in all %files sections. * OK - package contains code or permissible content. * OK - package does not contain large documentation. * OK - package %doc contents does not affect it's runtime. * OK - header files are in -devel subpackage. * OK - package does not provided static libraries. * OK - package does not provide libraries with a suffix. * OK - -devel subpackage has Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} * OK - package does not contain .la files. * OK - package does not contain a GUI application. * OK - package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. * OK - all file names are UTF-8. SHOULD items: * OK - Upstream is asked to include the license text to the distribution: http://bitbucket.org/ambroff/greenlet/issue/10/ * OK - the package builds in mock (if you make python26-distribute available to mock, it is now in testing). * OK - the pacakge functions as described. * OK - the package does not use scriplets. * OK - the package does not provide pkgconfig files. * OK - the package does not have file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin. rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python26-greenlet-0.3.1-3.el5.x86_64.rpm python26-greenlet-debuginfo-0.3.1-3.el5.x86_64.rpm python26-greenlet-devel-0.3.1-3.el5.x86_64.rpm python26-greenlet-0.3.1-3.el5.src.rpm python26-greenlet.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tasklets -> task lets, task-lets, anklets python26-greenlet.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Tasklets -> Task lets, Task-lets, Anklets python26-greenlet-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation python26-greenlet.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tasklets -> task lets, task-lets, anklets python26-greenlet.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Tasklets -> Task lets, Task-lets, Anklets 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. I consider the package can be 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