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=627555 Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-08-26 09:59:47 EDT --- REVIEW: + 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@070905042 rpmbuild]$ md5sum orbitron.zip SOURCES/orbitron.zip 64f4966fc00f5396bea757f391e6cdf4 orbitron.zip 64f4966fc00f5396bea757f391e6cdf4 SOURCES/orbitron.zip - 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. [Ankur@070905042 SPECS]$ rpmlint tlomt-orbitron-fonts.spec ../SRPMS/tlomt-orbitron-fonts-1.0.0.0-1.fc13.src.rpm /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/*.rpm tlomt-orbitron-fonts.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag tlomt-orbitron-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ve -> be, v, e tlomt-orbitron-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fi -> phi, fee, if tlomt-orbitron-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US spacestation -> space station, space-station, contestation tlomt-orbitron-fonts.src: W: no-buildroot-tag tlomt-orbitron-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ve -> be, v, e tlomt-orbitron-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fi -> phi, fee, if tlomt-orbitron-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US spacestation -> space station, space-station, contestation tlomt-orbitron-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ve -> be, v, e tlomt-orbitron-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fi -> phi, fee, if tlomt-orbitron-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US spacestation -> space station, space-station, contestation tlomt-orbitron-fonts.src: W: no-buildroot-tag 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings. 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 - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) Issues: 1.I couldn't find the version number. Where is it mentioned? In case it isn't mentioned at all, it would be better to use the timestamp of the font as versioning info instead. 2.Some spelling suggestions in the rpmlint output. Please have a look. Apart from these, it looks okay. -- 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