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=650180 --- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-11-05 12:18:13 EDT --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is NOT silent sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/noarch/tkabber-0.11.1-1.svn1948.fc12.noarch.rpm tkabber.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency tcl-zlib tkabber.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency tcllib tkabber.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable -> customization, customize, customable tkabber.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tkabber-remote tkabber.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tkabber 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../SRPMS/tkabber-0.11.1-1.svn1948.fc12.src.rpm tkabber.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable -> customization, customize, customable tkabber.src: W: strange-permission tkabber 0755 tkabber.src: W: strange-permission tkabber-remote 0755 tkabber.src: W: strange-permission tkabber-snapshot.sh 0755 tkabber.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{name} tkabber.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{version} tkabber.src: W: invalid-url Source0: tkabber-0.11.1.tar.bz2 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: All these messages were explained by the submitter (see above). + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. The versioning scheme is correct because it's a post-release snapshot. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages + 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 DOES NOT match the actual license (GPLv2+). + 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 package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture (my F-12 ppc). + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + 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. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Fix License tag, 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