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=670558 Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |martin.gieseking@xxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |martin.gieseking@xxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking@xxxxxx> 2011-01-24 04:07:45 EST --- Hi Jussi, the package looks fine. Just two (non-blocking) things that should be addressed: - According to the source headers, the utility is licensed under GPLv2+ but COPYING contains the GPLv3 license text. Maybe you can clarify this with upstream - I suggest to use %{version} in Source0 $ rpmlint ./ape-* ape.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pseudopotentials -> pseudo potentials, pseudo-potentials, potentials ape.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pseudopotentials -> pseudo potentials, pseudo-potentials, potentials ape.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pseudopotentials -> pseudo potentials, pseudo-potentials, potentials ape.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pseudopotentials -> pseudo potentials, pseudo-potentials, potentials ape.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ape 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. The above warnings are expected and can be ignored. --------------------------------- key: [+] OK [.] OK, not applicable [X] needs work --------------------------------- [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license. - GPLv2+ according to source headers [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source. $ md5sum ape-1.1.0.tar.gz* 423de21a16aa806d67c2bdba20ba5c55 ape-1.1.0.tar.gz 423de21a16aa806d67c2bdba20ba5c55 ape-1.1.0.tar.gz.1 [+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, ... [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. [.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. [.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ... [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. [+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application. [.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix ... [.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives [.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg. [.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin ... [.] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. ---------------- Package APPROVED ---------------- -- 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