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=635515 --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-09-20 08:31:07 EDT --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is (almost) silent work ~/Desktop: rpmlint libphidget-* libphidget.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Phidgets -> Fidgets libphidget-devel.i686: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. work ~/Desktop: + 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.(LGPLv3) + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. + 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 libphidget_2.1.7.20100621.tar.gz* 63a1a7157f4a2b976b6d6858d8ae03ebef2fdc44f8dbb5832a3bfe2c9579e20c libphidget_2.1.7.20100621.tar.gz 63a1a7157f4a2b976b6d6858d8ae03ebef2fdc44f8dbb5832a3bfe2c9579e20c libphidget_2.1.7.20100621.tar.gz.1 Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See koji links above. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. + The package calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. + 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. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + Header files are in a -devel package. 0 No static libraries. + The library files that end in .so (without suffix) are in a -devel package. + The devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} + The package 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 rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Ok, looks good but some questions are still remains: 1. Why you don't enable java support? Is is intentional? See --enable-jni configure option. 2. No zeroconf support too. Why? 3. Config-files for hotplug/udev also not installed. I belive that they worth installing. 4. You provided patch for removing ldconfig and rm at %install stage, but there is a configure switch --disable-ldconfig. Why not to use it instead? -- 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