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=667205 Jan KaluÅa <jkaluza@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |jkaluza@xxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |jkaluza@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review?, | |needinfo?(tcallawa@xxxxxxxx | |om) --- Comment #2 from Jan KaluÅa <jkaluza@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-01-06 05:24:53 EST --- > $ rpmlint radius-engine-* > radius-engine-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. > $ rpmlint radius-engine.spec > radius-engine.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean > radius-engine.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag > radius-engine.spec: W: no-%clean-section > 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. These are all okay for F13+. I presume you don't want to have this package in EPEL, right? Formal review according to Review Guidelines: Explanation: [ok] .... the package meets the guideline item [--] .... the guideline item is not relevant for this package [ERR] ... the package fails to meet the guideline and must be fixed. ==================== [ok] rpmlint must be run on every package. [ok] named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ok] The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [ok] License must be Fedora approved; Licensing Guidelines. [ok] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [ok] license file (if any) must packaged in %doc. [ok] spec file in American English. [ok] spec legible. [ok] sources must match the upstream source [ok] must compile and build. [--] ExcludeArch if it does not. [ok] complete and sensible BuildRequires [--] handling of locales [ok] ldconfig for dynamic libs [ok] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [--] rules for relocatable packages [ok] directory ownership [ok] no duplicate listing in %files [ok] sane permissions; %defattr(...) [ok] consistent macro usage [ok] code or permissable content [ok] large doc [ok] header files [--] static libs [ok] .so in -devel [ok] devel requires base package [--] remove .la files [--] GUI app must include a %{name}.desktop and use desktop-file-install [ok] no owning of other packages' files/dirs [ok] UTF-8 filenames Formal review according to Packaging Guidelines: [ok] naming [ok] version and release [ok] Licensing [ok] no inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries [ok] spec legibility [ok] arch support [ok] filesystem layout [ok] changelogs [ok] tags [ok] BuildRoot [ok] Requires [ok] BuildRequires [ok] summary and description [ok] encoding [ok] compiler flags [ok] debuginfo [ok] devel packages [ok] no duplication of system libraries [ok] no rpath [ok] config files [--] initscripts [--] desktop files [--] Icon tag in Desktop Files [ok] macros (inconsistent usage, as already noted) [--] handling locale files [ok] timestamps [ok] parallel make [--] scriptlets [--] conditional deps [--] relocatable packages [ok] code vs content [ok] file and dir ownership [--] users and groups [--] web apps [ok] no conflicts [ok] no kernel modules [ok] nothing in /srv [ok] no bundling [ok] no fonts bundling [--] epoch [ok] symlinks [--] man pages I've tested also those two games you've on review with this library and it seems they both work. To sum it up, it's OK if it's F13+ package. -- 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