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=641199 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-10-08 08:04:26 EDT --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is almost silent: work ~: rpmlint Desktop/glib-networking-* glib-networking.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libproxy -> lib proxy, lib-proxy, libratory 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. work ~: + 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 (LGPLv2 or later). + 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, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum glib-networking-2.25.0.tar.bz2* cb5dd6de77b491813a0855732591b29977c51e2fb4e3146e54015409740f2ec4 glib-networking-2.25.0.tar.bz2 cb5dd6de77b491813a0855732591b29977c51e2fb4e3146e54015409740f2ec4 glib-networking-2.25.0.tar.bz2.1 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=2521917 + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + The spec file handles locales properly (by using the %find_lang macro). 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. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. 0 No header files. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1). 0 No devel sub-package. + 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. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Ok, still keeping in mind the build failure in F-14, I didn't find any issues, so this package is APPROVED 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