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=675726 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-02-24 05:22:44 EST --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is NOT silent but all its messages can be omitted in this case: sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/noarch/cdm-0.5.3-4.fc15.noarch.rpm cdm.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) minimalistic -> minimalist, minimalism, materialistic cdm.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) login -> loin, logic, lo gin cdm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minimalistic -> minimalist, minimalism, materialistic cdm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US login -> loin, logic, lo gin cdm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kdm -> km, Adm, Kim cdm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gdm -> gm, gem, gum cdm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US qingy -> dingy, mingy, zingy ^^^ False positive. cdm.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/zzz-cdm-profile.sh ^^^ That's ok - this file is not intented to be changed by end-=user. cdm.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cdm ^^^ Unfortunately this binary doesn't have corresponding man-page. So no luck for us here too. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: + 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 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 (GPLv2 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 cdm-0.5.3.tar.gz* fb9ada13d3416305828c99943698fe7df3b0ab91bd6099e7b2707e1d8dd99a23 cdm-0.5.3.tar.gz fb9ada13d3416305828c99943698fe7df3b0ab91bd6099e7b2707e1d8dd99a23 cdm-0.5.3.tar.gz.1 sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + 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 with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1). 0 No devel sub-package. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Apparently, this packages is a GUI application, but we don't need a *.desktop file for starting it from other desktops.it. It is a desktop itself. + 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. Ok, I can't find any other issues, so this package is 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