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=656010 Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich <krege@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |krege@xxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |krege@xxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich <krege@xxxxxxx> 2010-12-03 02:20:20 EST --- rpmlint is not silent. libsrtp.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean libsrtp.src: W: no-buildroot-tag libsrtp.src: W: no-%clean-section libsrtp.src: W: invalid-url Source0: srtp-1.4.4-20101004cvs.tar.bz2 libsrtp.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libsrtp.so.0.0.0 exit@xxxxxxxxxxx 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Exit call is not good. Could you provide any reasons why it might be leaved as is? Is there any way to specify the revision for csv checkout in spec? * The package named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. * The spec file name match the base package %{name}. * The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. * The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license. * The License field in the package spec file matchs the actual license. * 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. MARK: md5sum on provided .tar.bz2 and obtained .tar.bz2 are MISMATCHED, but the sources are EQUAL. * The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on x86_64 F14. * All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. * There are no locales. * Binary RPM package which stores shared library files calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. * Packages do not bundle copies of system libraries. * A package owns all directories that it creates. * There are no files, listed more than once in the spec file's %files listings. * Permissions on files are set properly. * The package contains code, or permissable content. * There is no large documentation. * Header files are in a -devel package. * There are no static libraries. * Library files that end in .so (without suffix) is in a -devel package. * Devel packages requires the base package. * Packages doed not contain any .la libtool archives. * All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. All is need are the answers on two above questions. -- 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