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=677693 --- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar <ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-02-15 11:59:45 EST --- Source tar ball is original. Ok. Summary verified from home page. Ok. Group for instant messenger is Ok. FIX: License should be GPLv2+ (src/main.c). The same applies for doc sub-package. URL is Ok. BuildRequires Ok. FIX: Source0 returns HTML file instead of the tar ball. TODO: Source0 URL hard-codes version number, use %{version} macro. Description verified from home page. Ok. TODO: Correct spelling of `Windows Xp' (letter case). TODO: Group for `doc' sub-package should be `Documentation'. FIX: Make `doc' sub-package noarch. %configure --bindir overrode because Makefile does not respect DESTDIR. Ok. TODO: Patch Makefile.in to respect DESTDIR and report it to upstream. TODO: Package `TODO' file. TODO: Package change logs from `mods' directory. FIX: Package COPYING into `doc' sub-package as it's independent. $ rpmlint tintin.spec ../SRPMS/tintin-2.00.5-1.fc14.src.rpm ../RPMS/x86_64/tintin-* tintin.spec:32: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build %configure --bindir=%{buildroot}%{_bindir} tintin.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tt -> rt, tr, t tintin.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tt -> rt, tr, t tintin.src:32: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build %configure --bindir=%{buildroot}%{_bindir} tintin-doc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tt -> rt, tr, t tintin.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tt -> rt, tr, t tintin.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tt -> rt, tr, t tintin.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tt++ 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. rpmlint Ok. $ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/x86_64/tintin-2.00.5-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 359080 Ãno 15 17:41 /usr/bin/tt++ drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Ãno 15 17:41 /usr/share/doc/tintin-2.00.5 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 18009 Äec 5 2009 /usr/share/doc/tintin-2.00.5/COPYING -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1916 pro 28 18:10 /usr/share/doc/tintin-2.00.5/CREDITS -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4840 pro 28 18:37 /usr/share/doc/tintin-2.00.5/FAQ -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1209 srp 2 2009 /usr/share/doc/tintin-2.00.5/INSTALL -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 6736 pro 28 18:40 /usr/share/doc/tintin-2.00.5/README $ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/x86_64/tintin-doc-2.00.5-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Ãno 15 17:41 /usr/share/doc/tintin-doc-2.00.5 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 6196 led 23 2010 /usr/share/doc/tintin-doc-2.00.5/SCRIPTS -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 8477 Äec 9 2009 /usr/share/doc/tintin-doc-2.00.5/chat_protocol.txt -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 11181 Äec 9 2009 /usr/share/doc/tintin-doc-2.00.5/tintin19.txt File permissions and layout Ok. $ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/x86_64/tintin-2.00.5-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6()(64bit) 1 libnsl.so.1()(64bit) 1 libpcre.so.0()(64bit) 1 libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) 1 libpthread.so.0()(64bit) 1 libutil.so.1(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) 1 libutil.so.1()(64bit) 1 libz.so.1()(64bit) 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 1 rtld(GNU_HASH) $ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/x86_64/tintin-doc-2.00.5-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 $ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/x86_64/tintin-2.00.5-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 tintin(x86-64) = 2.00.5-1.fc14 1 tintin = 2.00.5-1.fc14 $ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/x86_64/tintin-doc-2.00.5-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 tintin-doc(x86-64) = 2.00.5-1.fc14 1 tintin-doc = 2.00.5-1.fc14 Binary dependencies Ok. $ resolvedeps-f16 ../RPMS/x86_64/tintin-* Binary dependencies resolvable. Ok. Package build in F16 (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2841981). Ok. Otherwise package is in line with Fedora packaging guidelines. Please correct all `FIX' prefixed issues, consider fixing all `TODO' prefixed issues and provide new spec file. Resolution: Package NOT 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