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=682353 Raghu Udiyar <raghusiddarth@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |raghusiddarth@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #6 from Raghu Udiyar <raghusiddarth@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-03-07 18:18:12 EST --- Hi, This is an informal review per the package guidelines given here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines MUST ITEMS [-] rpmlint output * Just some spelling errors (rpmlint -i will give more details) : $ rpmlint wmtop.spec ../RPMS/x86_64/wmtop-* ../SRPMS/wmtop-0.84-3.fc14.src.rpm wmtop.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(de) top -> Top, top-, -top wmtop.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Dockapp -> Dock app, Dock-app, Dockage wmtop.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpu -> CPU, cup, cp wmtop.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l de Dockapp -> Dock, Andocke, Documenta wmtop.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l de top -> Top, top-, -top wmtop.src: W: spelling-error Summary(de) top -> Top, top-, -top wmtop.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Dockapp -> Dock app, Dock-app, Dockage wmtop.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpu -> CPU, cup, cp wmtop.src: W: spelling-error %description -l de Dockapp -> Dock, Andocke, Documenta wmtop.src: W: spelling-error %description -l de top -> Top, top-, -top 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. [x] The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [x] The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec [x] The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . (GPLv2+) [x] The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x] The source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x] The spec file is written in American English. [x] The spec file for the package is legible. [x] The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. (md5: 2bab22c5bc3a5b887e7c03d6dbfe59d7 ) [x] The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on two primary architectures (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2886866) [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires [x] No locale files. [x] Packages does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [x] Package is not designed to be relocatable. [x] A package owns all directories that it creates. [x] No file listed more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. Executables are set with executable permissions. Every %files section includes a %defattr(...) line. [x] Each package has consistently use macros. [x] The package contains codes, or permissable content. [x] There is no large documentation files [x] The program runs properly even if %doc it is not present [x] Packages does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [x] All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. SHOULD ITEMS [x] Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file from upstream. [X] The description and summary sections in the package spec file does not contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. (German traslation provided) [x] Tested the package was built fine in mock. [?] The package compiles and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. (Tested on x86_64 and i386 successfully) [X] A package does not segfault. (Did not segfault for me) [x] No scriptlet used [x] No subpackage used [x] No pkgconfig(.pc) used [x] No file dependencies [x] Manpage included -- 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