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=675914 --- Comment #13 from Oksana <okurysheva@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-03-11 04:19:18 EST --- http://avienda.fedorapeople.org/packages/new/flush.spec http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2903510 for f15 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2903526 for f14 --- Comment #14 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-03-11 04:19:18 EST --- Looks much better now! REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable - rpmlint is almost silent work ~/Desktop: rpmlint flush-0.9.10-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm flush.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US configs -> con figs, con-figs, configures ^^^ This one may be omitted. flush.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/ru/man1/flush.1.gz ^^^ This one should be converted from koi8-r to UTF-8 before installing. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. work ~/Desktop: + 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 doesn't meet the Packaging Guidelines fully (still there is an issue with icon cache). Take a look at this link for best practices with updating icon's cache: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache Just copypaste this example into your spec (replacing %post section entirely). + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. - The License field in the package spec file MUST match the actual license (GPLv3 or later). Thus the License tag must be set to GPLv3+. + 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, matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. work ~/Desktop: sha256sum flush-0.9.10.tar.bz2* 9c2605bb5c9e8daabfbe1a63fbceb1029bad3b679a3e023a6f2e73c2b8c16253 flush-0.9.10.tar.bz2 9c2605bb5c9e8daabfbe1a63fbceb1029bad3b679a3e023a6f2e73c2b8c16253 flush-0.9.10.tar.bz2.orig work ~/Desktop: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See koji link above + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + The spec file handles locales properly (by using the %find_lang macro). 0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. 0 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. 0 The package DOESN'T have a %clean section, so it won't build cleanly on systems with old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware. + 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 without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so). 0 No devel sub-package. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. + The package includes a %{name}.desktop file, and this file is properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. + 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, so the only remaining issues are: * Convert russian man-page to UTF-8 * Change Licence tag to GPLv3+ * Properly update icon's cache -- 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