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=620000 --- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-11-14 07:04:13 EST --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is silent sulaco ~: rpmlint ~/Desktop/hatari-* hatari.src: W: invalid-url Source1: hatari-1.4.0-debian-manpages.tar.gz 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. sulaco ~: This may be safely ignored. + 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. I have only few (maybe not so important) notes: * I don't like this "Requires %{name}" line in ui sub-package. Does it means that UI should work fine with previous versions of hatari? * Regarding python support - the explicit "Requires: python2" also worries me - I strongly suggest you to test whether hatari-ui works with python3 since we already ship python3 in F-14 an higher. Anyway these two are not a blockers - just a friendly reminders. + 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 (GPLv2 or later). - The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package (gpl.txt), MUST be 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 hatari-1.4.0.tar.bz2* 690e21bd2210a7e86af5d76ccc7f4e608aae37df466d2ead2ac4d105a637bc7b hatari-1.4.0.tar.bz2 690e21bd2210a7e86af5d76ccc7f4e608aae37df466d2ead2ac4d105a637bc7b hatari-1.4.0.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. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths. + 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 without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so). 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. Ok, so, please, mark gpl.txt as %doc and I'll finish it. Also it would be great if you comment my notes regarding dependencies in *-ui sub-package. -- 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