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=609193 Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-07-12 07:10:00 EDT --- Fedora Review python-dirq 2010-07-12 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/python-dirq-0.0.5-2.fc12.noarch.rpm ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-dirq-0.0.5-2.fc12.src.rpm python-dirq.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US perl -> Perl, peel, perk python-dirq.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US perl -> Perl, peel, perk python-dirq.src:15: W: macro-in-comment %if python-dirq.src:17: W: macro-in-comment %{_bindir} python-dirq.src:18: W: macro-in-comment %endif Maybe write Perl with a capital P in the description? The original spec file has two more warnings: srpm/python-dirq.spec:16: W: macro-in-comment %global srpm/python-dirq.spec:17: W: macro-in-comment %global I had to change % to %% here in order for the package to build, making the same change for the other macro-in-comment warnings will remove them too. + Package named according to guidelines + Specfile named as the package + Package license (ASL 2.0) is a Fedora approved license + Package license matches the actual license of the package sources + Source does not contain a dedicated license file - however, the README file states the license and is included as %doc + Specfile is written in legible English + Source match upstream: $ md5sum dirq-0.0.5.tar.gz srpm/dirq-0.0.5.tar.gz fdcf5c940d4c6c91c7b835194fae1f06 dirq-0.0.5.tar.gz fdcf5c940d4c6c91c7b835194fae1f06 srpm/dirq-0.0.5.tar.gz + Package compiles (F12, F13, EL5) ? BuildRequires are sane - but some of them are hidden inside the %{altpython}-dirq package description, which is a bit confusing + no locales + no shared libraries + no bundled libraries + Package owns the directories it creates + No duplicate files + Permissions are sane and %files has %defattr(...) ? Specfile mostly uses macros consistently. It uses /usr/bin instead of %{_bindir} in the sed replacement that removes /usr/bin/env though. Why is this replacement done only for python3, and not for all? And you do pack the original examples and test files also for the %altpython package - intentional? + Package contains code + %doc is not runtime essential + ho headers + no static libraries + Package does not own others directories + installed files are UTF8 -- 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