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=649781 --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-11-17 05:03:22 EST --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is silent work ~/Desktop: rpmlint cortado-* 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. work ~/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 almost meets the Packaging Guidelines except the following: * The javadoc sub-package should require jpackage-utils instead of %{name} because it could be used w/o main package. + 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 (GLPv2+ and LGPLv2+ for jheora). + 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 cortado-0.6.0.tar.gz* 37a708bfceba5b7b0b544456bb3857f708c83734dfb3f3f1ababcc602b923e85 cortado-0.6.0.tar.gz 37a708bfceba5b7b0b544456bb3857f708c83734dfb3f3f1ababcc602b923e85 cortado-0.6.0.tar.gz.1 sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See link above. + 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. + 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. 0 Not a GUI application. + 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, adjust explicit requirement in javadoc subpackage accordingly to draft version of Java Packaging Guidelines and I'll finish this review. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Akurtakov/JavaPackagingDraftUpdate#Javadoc_installation -- 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