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=615153 --- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-07-16 03:11:34 EDT --- REVIEW: + OK ? ISSUE - NA + Package meets naming and packaging guidelines + Spec file matches base package name. + 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: [Ankur@localhost rpmbuild]$ md5sum tint2-0.11.tar.bz2 SOURCES/tint2-0.11.tar.bz2 6fc5731e7425125fa84a2add5cef4bff tint2-0.11.tar.bz2 6fc5731e7425125fa84a2add5cef4bff SOURCES/tint2-0.11.tar.bz2 - 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. - 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 Issues: 1. License is unclear. You'd probably be better off contacting upstream to choose one of the two. 2.rpmlint output: [Ankur@localhost rpmbuild]$ rpmlint SPECS/tint2.spec SRPMS/tint2-0.11-1.fc13.src.rpm /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/*.rpm tint2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ttm -> tam, atm, tom tint2.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ttm -> tam, atm, tom tint2.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tintwizard.py tint2.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tint2conf tint2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ttm -> tam, atm, tom 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. I wonder why it refers to tintwizard.py as a binary. Please check this? The rest looks good. Once these minor issues are cleared, you're good to go. 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