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=510864 manuel wolfshant <wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from manuel wolfshant <wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-07-14 20:16:44 EDT --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: devel/x86_64, EL-6/x86_64 [x] Rpmlint output: source RPM: colorize.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) скрипт colorize.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) для colorize.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) раскрашивания colorize.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) логов colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Этот colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US короткий colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US скрипт colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US раскрашивает colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Ваши colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US логи colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Вы colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US можете colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US изменять colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US цвета colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US по colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US своему colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US усмотрению colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US как colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US на colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US уровне colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US пользователя colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US редактируюя colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US конфиг colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US в colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US домашней colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US директории colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US или colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US системы colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US редактируя colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US сис colorize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US темный ->To be honest I do not understand why does rpmlint try to analyze the Russian text using the en_US parser. Anyway I guess all these warnings are ignorable. colorize.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://colorize.raszi.hu/download/colorize_0.3.4.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found ->http://colorize.raszi.hu/ does not point to a valid location any more. Please either use a valid URL or make a note that there is no valid upstream and ditch the "http" part. binary RPM: colorize.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C colorize -> ignorable, it's part of a valid phrase colorize.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found pl colorize.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found ru ->lack of hunspell support on my system, ignorable colorize.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US perl -> Perl, peel, perk colorize.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con fig, con-fig, configure -> ignorable [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)) [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type:GPLv2+ [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [?] Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. -> no upstream [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}. [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] Final provides and requires are sane. === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. -> koji scratch builds were succesful for devel and EL-6 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: devel/x86_64, EL-6 (beta)/x86_64 [x] Package functions as described. [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct. [-] File based requires are sane. [-] %check is present and the test passes. === Issues === 1. Please fix the Source tag 2. The changelog has a couple of typos: %%{booildroot} should be %%{buildroot}, "becouse" should be "because". however I think that the whole changelog is way too long. I would just make it "Initial version based on PLD's rpm". Your call, this is just a suggestion. === Final Notes === 1. Please fix the Source tag and you are good to go ================ *** 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