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=609728 Adam Miller <maxamillion@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |maxamillion@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | |rg Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Adam Miller <maxamillion@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-07-02 17:58:01 EDT --- YES - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines YES - Spec file matches base package name. YES - Spec has consistant macro usage. YES - Meets Packaging Guidelines. YES - License YES - License field in spec matches YES - License file included in package YES - Spec in American English YES - Spec is legible. YES - Sources match upstream md5sum: NA - Package needs ExcludeArch YES - BuildRequires correct NA - Spec handles locales/find_lang NA - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. YES - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. YES - Package has a correct %clean section. YES - Package has correct buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) YES - Package is code or permissible content. NA - Doc subpackage needed/used. YES - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. YES - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. NA - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun NA - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig NA - .so files in -devel subpackage. YES - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} NA - .la files are removed. NA - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file YES - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. YES - Package has no duplicate files in %files. YES - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. YES - Package owns all the directories it creates. NO - No rpmlint output.--> RPMLINT false W about invalid URL, verified with spectool - final provides and requires are sane: (include output of for i in *rpm; do echo $i; rpm -qp --provides $i; echo =; rpm -qp --requires $i; echo; done manually indented after checking each line. I also remove the rpmlib junk and anything provided by glibc.) [16:56:18][adam@turnip][result]+ for i in *rpm; do echo $i; rpm -qp --provides $i; echo =; rpm -qp --requires $i; echo; done sparsehash-1.7-2.fc13.src.rpm = rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 sparsehash-devel-1.7-2.fc13.x86_64.rpm sparsehash-devel = 1.7-2.fc13 sparsehash-devel(x86-64) = 1.7-2.fc13 = rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 SHOULD Items: YES - Should build in mock. YES - Should build on all supported archs NA - Should function as described. NA - Should have sane scriptlets. - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. YES - Should have dist tag YES - Should package latest version - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) No issues found. 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