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=609320 Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-06-30 01:40:25 EDT --- Review: + OK - NA x issue + Package meets naming and packaging guidelines + Spec file matches base package name. x Spec has consistant macro usage. + Meets Packaging Guidelines. + License + License field in spec matches + License file included in package + Spec in American English + Spec is legible. + Sources match upstream md5sum: - Package needs ExcludeArch + BuildRequires correct - Spec handles locales/find_lang - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. + Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. + Package has a correct %clean section. + Package has correct buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) + Package is code or permissible content. - Doc subpackage needed/used. + Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig - .so files in -devel subpackage. - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - .la files are removed. - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. + Package has no duplicate files in %files. + Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. + Package owns all the directories it creates. x No rpmlint output. SHOULD Items: + Should build in mock. + Should build on all supported archs + Should function as described. - Should have sane scriptlets. - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. + Should have dist tag + Should package latest version - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) Issues: 1. Please use either $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot}. 2. I see that the font spec template at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template has an added Requires : fontpackages-filesystem 3. Why the additional BuildRequires on BuildRequires: xorg-x11-font-utils ?? 4. rpmlint output: [Ankur@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint grimmer-proggy-tinysz-fonts.spec ../SRPMS/grimmer-proggy-tinysz-fonts-1.0-1.fc13.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/grimmer-proggy-tinysz-fonts-1.0-1.fc13.noarch.rpm grimmer-proggy-tinysz-fonts.spec:24: W: setup-not-quiet grimmer-proggy-tinysz-fonts.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: ProggyTinySZ.ttf.zip grimmer-proggy-tinysz-fonts.src:24: W: setup-not-quiet grimmer-proggy-tinysz-fonts.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ProggyTinySZ.ttf.zip grimmer-proggy-tinysz-fonts.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/grimmer-proggy-tinysz-fonts-1.0/Licence.txt 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. - use %setup -q - have a look at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding 5. change %_font_pkg -f %{fontconf} * to %_font_pkg -f %{fontconf} *.ttf ? (Its just a little more specific) Minor issues, apart from this, looks good. Please make the required changes and I'll approve the package. regards, Ankur -- 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