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=642555 --- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-10-19 15:17:49 EDT --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is not silent but all its messages can be ignored in this case: Sulaco ~/Desktop: rpmlint qdigidoc-* qdigidoc.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qdigidocclient qdigidoc.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qdigidoccrypto ^^^ it implies that no man-pages are provided. qdigidoc-nautilus.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ^^^ nautilus plugis are stored in libdir and sometimes they are not a executable binaries (I mean made by gcc et al.) qdigidoc-nautilus.i686: W: no-documentation ^^^ exactly what he said - no docs for this sub-package 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Sulaco ~/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 (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 qdigidoc-0.4.0.tar.bz2* 38309dec6f3adc23abc5813870e30d14d7dc136ef7cecee73fc0583761653780 qdigidoc-0.4.0.tar.bz2 38309dec6f3adc23abc5813870e30d14d7dc136ef7cecee73fc0583761653780 qdigidoc-0.4.0.tar.bz2.1 Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See koji link above. + 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 has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + 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. + The package includes a %{name}.desktop file, and this file is properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. - The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. Unfortunately two directories are not owned by anyone in the dependency chain - %{_datadir}/mime/packages/ and %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/. Their respective owners are - shared-mime-info and hicolor-icon-theme. Please, add them as explicit Requires (or ensure that someone from dependency chain will require them). + 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, I found the only possible issue - two potentially missing rutime requirements (shared-mime-info and hicolor-icon-theme). Please, either add them as Requires or ensure that someone from dependency chain already requires them, and I'll continue. -- 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