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=626699 Kalev Lember <kalev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Kalev Lember <kalev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-10-11 07:47:14 EDT --- Fedora review libmcrypto-0.8.0-0.1.20100629svn3775.fc12.src.rpm 2010-10-11 + OK ! needs attention rpmlint output: $ rpmlint libmcrypto \ libmcrypto-devel \ libmcrypto-0.8.0-0.1.20100629svn3775.fc15.src.rpm \ libmcrypto-debuginfo-0.8.0-0.1.20100629svn3775.fc15.i686.rpm libmcrypto.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libmcrypto.so.0.0.0 /lib/libdl.so.2 libmcrypto.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libmcrypto.so.0.0.0 /lib/libz.so.1 libmcrypto.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libmcrypto.so.0.0.0 /lib/libm.so.6 libmcrypto.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libmcrypto.so.0.0.0 exit@xxxxxxxxx libmcrypto-devel.i686: W: no-documentation libmcrypto.src: W: invalid-url Source0: libmcrypto-0.8.0.tar.bz2 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. + Rpmlint warnings are mostly harmless and can be ignored. shared-lib-calls-exit is something to take up with upstream as it might result in application crashes if a library unexpectedly calls exit(). + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + Spec file name matches the base package name + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The license field in the spec file matches the actual license + The package contains license file (COPYING.LIB) + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible + Following instructions in the spec file to check out sources from upstream svn repo produce matching tarball. cf48f3a539901d86a91b167cf8cdcdfc libmcrypto-0.8.0.tar.bz2 + The package builds in koji n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires look sane n/a The spec file MUST handle locales properly + ldconfig is properly called in %post and %postun + Package does not bundle copies of system libraries n/a Package isn't relocatable + Package owns all directories it creates + No duplicate files in %files + Permissions are properly set and %files has %defattr + Consistent use of macros + The package must contain code, or permissable content. n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + Files marked %doc don't affect the package + Header files are in -devel n/a Static libraries should be in -static + Library files that end in .so are in -devel package + -devel requires the fully versioned base + Package doesn't contain any libtool .la files n/a Packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + Directory ownership sane + Filenames are valid UTF-8 Looks good. 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