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=660393 --- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-12-23 04:06:49 EST --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is not silent but all its messages are just a false positives sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/noarch/netxen-firmware-4.0.534-2.fc12.noarch.rpm netxen-firmware.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) QLogic -> Q Logic, Logic, Logistic netxen-firmware.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US QLogic -> Q Logic, Logic, Logistic 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: + 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 (redistributable w/o modifications). + 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, MUST match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum phanfw.bin* LICENCE.phanfw* e1444f55fb6a06d5580dd65f4c5e4c0e58b39e8d92833db12e7cb05cf712aa0f phanfw.bin e1444f55fb6a06d5580dd65f4c5e4c0e58b39e8d92833db12e7cb05cf712aa0f phanfw.bin.1 95e24016be3ed63247fe9cb34011c20008217216934375118d9a77d799d6b7b5 LICENCE.phanfw d71de4bbee2641d2901b7a8e9155c36da4d862803a92d633e0e2391a6b66cd03 LICENCE.phanfw.1 sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: The LICENSE.phanfw file differs from downloaded copy. Although the changes are just cosmetic (cheched with diff), I'd really prefer to deal with the file provided by upstream. + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + 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 does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + 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 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. However there is one unowned directory - /lib/firmware (which is owned by udev). Please add "Requires: udev". + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Please, address the two issues mentioned above and I'll continue. -- 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