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=611080 Martin Bacovsky <mbacovsk@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Martin Bacovsky <mbacovsk@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-07-21 03:25:21 EDT --- Thanks, - = N/A x = OK ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-unittest2-0.5.1-1.fc13.noarch.rpm python-unittest2.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Backport -> Back port, Back-port, Backplate python-unittest2.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unittest -> unit test, unit-test, unities python-unittest2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backport -> back port, back-port, backplate python-unittest2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unittest -> unit test, unit-test, unities python-unittest2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US TestCase -> Test Case, Test-Case, Test-case python-unittest2.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/unittest2/test/dummy.py python-unittest2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary unit2-2.6 python-unittest2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary unit2 python-unittest2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary unit2.py 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings. The zero-length file is part of the library $ rpmlint python-unittest2-0.5.1-1.fc13.src.rpm python-unittest2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Backport -> Back port, Back-port, Backplate python-unittest2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unittest -> unit test, unit-test, unities python-unittest2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backport -> back port, back-port, backplate python-unittest2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unittest -> unit test, unit-test, unities python-unittest2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US TestCase -> Test Case, Test-Case, Test-case 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. [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 including the Perl specific items [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: x86_64 /var/lib/mock/fedora-13-x86_64/result [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: BSD [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. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provideda in the spec URL. a0af5cac92bbbfa0c3b0e99571390e0f unittest2-0.5.1.tar.gz [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. [x] 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 -fR $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. [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] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Latest version is packaged. [?] 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. Tested on: f13.x86_64, f13.x86_64 [-] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supporteda architectures. Tested on: rawhide.i386, rawhide.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. [x] %check is present and the tests pass ACCEPT -- 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