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=675947 Ian Weller <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Ian Weller <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-02-14 14:16:30 EST --- [ OK ] specfiles match: f6902a4139db4e1d30740877364ada965272ee14 sanlock.spec f6902a4139db4e1d30740877364ada965272ee14 sanlock.spec.1 [ OK ] source files match upstream: 4bdf9face8b0e477df38ead65204940299d79767 sanlock-1.0.tar.gz 4bdf9face8b0e477df38ead65204940299d79767 sanlock-1.0.tar.gz.1 [ OK ] package meets naming and versioning guidelines. [FAILED] spec is properly named, cleanly written, and uses macros consistently. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS Please use %{optflags} and %{buildroot} or $RPM_OPT_FLAGS and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, not both. [ OK ] dist tag is present. [ OK ] build root is correct. [ OK ] license field matches the actual license. (although, I can't really tell whether it's GPLv2 or GPLv2+, because there's no definition of that at the top of the code files. if you are upstream, and I assume you are, I would fix this) [ OK ] license is open source-compatible. [ OK ] license text included in package. [ OK ] latest version is being packaged. [ OK ] BuildRequires are proper. [ OK ] compiler flags are appropriate. [ OK ] %clean is present. [ OK ] package builds in mock. [ OK ] package installs properly. [ OK ] debuginfo package looks complete. [ OK ] rpmlint is silent. There are three ignorable warnings (2 spelling-error and 1 no-manual-page-for-binary) [ OK ] final provides and requires are sane [ N/A ] %check is present and all tests pass: [ OK ] no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. [ OK ] owns the directories it creates. [ OK ] doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. [ OK ] no duplicates in %files. [ OK ] file permissions are appropriate. [ OK ] scriptlets match those on ScriptletSnippets page. [ OK ] code, not content. [ OK ] documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. [ OK ] %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. [ OK ] no headers outside -devel. [ OK ] no pkgconfig files outside -devel. [ OK ] no libtool .la droppings. [ N/A ] desktop files valid and installed properly. The only failure in this package is general cleanliness in the specfile, which I assume you can fix when you do the initial import on the VCS. ----------------------------------------------- This package sanlock is approved by ianweller ----------------------------------------------- Congratulations, I am willing to sponsor you! You should receive an email shortly from FAS that states you are now in the packager group. After this, continue with the new packager process ("Join the package collection maintainers" on the wiki) to get your packages in Fedora. ---- Sponsorship info: - 3 reviews approved: bug 675947, bug 676187, bug 668243 -- 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