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=643199 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-01-12 10:28:04 EST --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is not silent, but all its messages can be safely ignored: work ~: rpmlint Desktop/python-pymtp-0.0.4-0.3.fc15.* python-pymtp.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libmtp -> libation, Liberty, librate python-pymtp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libmtp -> libation, Liberty, librate python-pymtp.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libmtp -> libation, Liberty, librate python-pymtp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libmtp -> libation, Liberty, librate ^^^ These are false positives. python-pymtp.x86_64: E: no-binary ^^^ This package contains only arch-independent data, but does depends on arch-dependent stuff. So we can't mark it as noarch. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. work ~: + 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 situation with ugly dependency on libmtp.so.8 is explained in the comments above. + 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 (GPLv3 or later). + 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, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum pymtp-latest.tar.bz2* b60d18ffa107a3e2a50a259123f51d81cd097a21e974f12dae84b3215a535f8b pymtp-latest.tar.bz2 b60d18ffa107a3e2a50a259123f51d81cd097a21e974f12dae84b3215a535f8b pymtp-latest.tar.bz2.1 sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: Unfortunately, no versioned sources provided by upstream. + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. Koji scratchbuild for Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2716996 + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths. + 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 No header files. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so). 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. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. I can't find any issues here, so this package APPROVED. p.s. I would like you to review this package in return: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652623 -- 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