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=645857 Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-10-23 11:47:43 EDT --- It builds on primary arches if you remove the exlusive arch flag but as its only of use on ARM I don't see the point (maybe we need to get package guidelines to reflect that). Looks mostly OK. The first one here seems to be that some X drivers do and others don't. I'm not sure its a major issue. I'm not sure if the later one is due to being grabbed from GIT (although it has worked fine in other instances). - license file included in package - upstream sources match sources in the srpm + rpmlint output $ rpmlint xorg-x11-drv-omapfb-0.1.1-1* xorg-x11-drv-omapfb.armv5tel: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) omap -> map, o map, Omar xorg-x11-drv-omapfb.armv5tel: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US omap -> map, o map, Omar xorg-x11-drv-omapfb.armv5tel: W: no-documentation xorg-x11-drv-omapfb.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) omap -> map, o map, Omar xorg-x11-drv-omapfb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US omap -> map, o map, Omar xorg-x11-drv-omapfb.src:77: W: macro-in-comment %{_mandir} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. + package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines + specfile name matches the package base name + package should satisfy packaging guidelines + license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora + license matches the actual package license - license file included in package + latest version packaged + %doc includes license file + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible - upstream sources match sources in the srpm md5sum xf86-video-omapfb-0.1.1.tar.gz f3699f5644bec0307071ffeb88f51921 xf86-video-omapfb-0.1.1.tar.gz md5sum ../rpmbuild/SOURCES/xf86-video-omapfb-0.1.1.tar.gz effdaf4ef203ab071473c2d71b6e59ef ../rpmbuild/SOURCES/xf86-video-omapfb-0.1.1.tar.gz + package successfully builds on at least one architecture tested using koji scratch build http://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=32294 + BuildRequires list all build dependencies n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun+ does not use Prefix: /usr n/a package owns all directories it creates n/a no duplicate files in %files + Package perserves timestamps on install + Permissions on files must be set properly + %defattr line + consistent use of macros + package must contain code or permissible content n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + files marked %doc should not affect package runtime n/a header files should be in -devel n/a static libraries should be in -static n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel n/a devel must require the fully versioned base + packages should not contain libtool .la files n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages + filenames must be valid UTF-8 Optional: + if there is no license file, packager should query upstream to include it n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available + reviewer should build the package in mock/koji + the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures n/a review should test the package functions as described + scriptlets should be sane n/a non -devel packages should require fully versioned base n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel + shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin n/a Package should have man files -- 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