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=666455 --- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-01-13 06:06:32 EST --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is silent work ~: rpmlint Desktop/sdcv-* sdcv.src: W: spelling-error Summary(ru) Console sdcv.src: W: spelling-error Summary(ru) version sdcv.src: W: spelling-error Summary(ru) of sdcv.src: W: spelling-error Summary(ru) program sdcv.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/sdcv/sdcv/0.4.2/sdcv-0.4.2.tar.bz2 <urlopen error timed out> sdcv.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(ru) Console sdcv.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(ru) version sdcv.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(ru) of sdcv.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(ru) program 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. work ~: All thgese messages are false positives and may be omitted. + 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. Just one cosmetic note - you'd better to add a line break between sections, such as between %files and %changelog. Also I don't think that installing almost empty README and (clearly not intended for end-users) TODO is useful, but it's up to you to decide whether or not to package it. Also I suggest you to package doc/DICTFILE_FORMAT as %doc file. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. - The License field in the package spec file MUST match the actual license (GPLv2+). The file src/lib/distance.cpp is licensed under GPL w/o stating explicit GPL version (thuns it is licensed under GPL+), but its contents is relicensed under GPLv2+ while linking. + 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 sdcv-0.4.2.tar.bz2* a164f079e93986814ea2d39f3a49cf9d1b71b01aad908254457fe3d0ded9deb2 sdcv-0.4.2.tar.bz2 a164f079e93986814ea2d39f3a49cf9d1b71b01aad908254457fe3d0ded9deb2 sdcv-0.4.2.tar.bz2.1 sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See koji link above. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + The spec file handles locales properly (by using the %find_lang macro). 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. 0 The package DOESN'T have a %clean section, so it won't build cleanly on systems with old rpm. Beware. + 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. So, please, fix the License tag, and I'll continue. The rest of my notes are not a blocker ones. -- 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