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=638909 Mario Ceresa <mrceresa@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mrceresa@xxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |mrceresa@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Mario Ceresa <mrceresa@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-11-25 11:32:17 EST --- I'll review it! Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable - rpmlint is silent? rpmlist -i suggests to noarch the package. Is it possible? + 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. Package is listed with BSD but headers in source code says its Erlang Public License. + 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. a12693d660133f5735d5543673023621 SOURCES/uwiger-gproc-f0807c9.tar.gz a12693d660133f5735d5543673023621 uwiger-gproc-f0807c9.tar.gz (from github) + 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 + 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 Header files are stored in a -devel package. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a *-devel package. 0 The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} + 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. To summarize, I found only these two minor glitches: * Consider if is possible to make the package noarch * The license should be Erlang public license. -- 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