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=661832 Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich <krege@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |krege@xxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |krege@xxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich <krege@xxxxxxx> 2010-12-10 00:36:08 EST --- Grate. review: ==================== Good: # rpmlint *.rpm kdevelop-pg-qt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kdev-pg-qt kdevelop-pg-qt-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. rpmlint output could be ignored (but if somebody would ping upstream about man page...). * Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . * Spec file name must matchs the base package %{name}. * Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. Notice: you have in %prep %setup -q -n kdevelop-pg-qt-%{version} It is as how %setup -q will run, right? * The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . * 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 matchs the upstream source with md5 summ 06e25c81cc34a5bddda3091ed3280e71. * The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on x86_64. * All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. * There are no locales. * There are no shared libraries. * Packages does not bundle copies of system libraries. Notice. Package use part of astyle project, which is not a library. * Not a relocatable package. * Package owns all directories that it creates. * Package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. * Permissions on files are set properly. * Package uses macros consistently. * The package contains code. * There are no documentation. * Everyting included as %doc does not affect the runtime of the application. * Header files are in a -devel package. * There are no static libraries. * Devel package requires the base package in proper way. * Not a GUI application. * Package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. * All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Should items: * Package boukds in mock. * Package function as described. * cmake file in -devel subpackage. ========================================== Not good: - The License field in the package spec file does not match the actual license. There are files licensed as GPLv.2+. -- 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