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=622293 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-08-16 15:22:52 EDT --- Ok, good. I don't see any other issues so far so here is my REVIEW: +/- rpmlint is NOT silent (fortunately almost all of its messages can be safely ignored in this particular case) Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/erlang-erlydtl-0.6.0-1.fc12.ppc.rpm erlang-erlydtl.ppc: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Erlang implementation of the Django Template Language. erlang-erlydtl.ppc: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bytecode -> byte code, byte-code, byte erlang-erlydtl.ppc: E: no-binary erlang-erlydtl.ppc: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: Please, take care of 'summary-ended-with-dot' arning - just remove trailing dot from summary. Spelling error is just a false positive. The rest two entries are just because of erlang-rlated package's structure - it must be installed into %_libdir no matter of whether it is arch-specific or noarch. + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec . + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines . + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines . + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (MIT) . 0 The source package doesn't include the text of the license(s) in its own file + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL: Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum erlydtl-0.6.0.tar.gz* 4d6ceeaef064281f0de51f4f4bd6c1662a3217642bf2dd96b80adc5063e85e34 erlydtl-0.6.0.tar.gz 4d6ceeaef064281f0de51f4f4bd6c1662a3217642bf2dd96b80adc5063e85e34 erlydtl-0.6.0.tar.gz.1 Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2404579 + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. 0 The package is NOT designed to be relocatable + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. 0 No extremely large documentation files + Everything the package includes as %doc does not affect the runtime of the application. 0 No C/C++ header files. 0 No static libraries. 0 The package does NOT contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1) 0 No devel sub-package. + The packages does NOT contain any .la libtool archives, 0 Not a GUI application + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + All filenames in the package are valid UTF-8. 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