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=533167 Ruediger Landmann <r.landmann@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |r.landmann@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #15 from Ruediger Landmann <r.landmann@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-03-30 02:43:16 EDT --- Thanks Karel -- Looks good now. ACCEPT - = N/A / = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [/] Rpmlint output is clean: $ rpmlint SPECS/emacs-ecb.spec SPECS/emacs-ecb.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: ecb-cvs20101021.tar.xz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint SRPMS/emacs-ecb-2.40.1-0.4.cvs20101021.fc14.src.rpm emacs-ecb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xemacs -> XEmacs emacs-ecb.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ecb-cvs20101021.tar.xz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. $ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/emacs-ecb-2.40.1-0.4.cvs20101021.fc14.noarch.rpm emacs-ecb.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xemacs -> XEmacs 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/emacs-ecb-el-2.40.1-0.4.cvs20101021.fc14.noarch.rpm emacs-ecb-el.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Elisp -> Elis, Lisp, Elise emacs-ecb-el.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US elisp -> lisp, e lisp, Elise emacs-ecb-el.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. [/] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [/] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [/] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Language specific items [/] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [/] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: GPLv2+ [-] If (and only if) 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. [/] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [/] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. * instructions in spec file produce tarball with functionally identical contents [/] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2959219 [/] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly (with the %find_lang macro) [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [/] Package does not bundle copies of system libraries [/] Package is not relocatable. [/] Package must own all directories that it creates. [/] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [/] Permissions on files are set properly [/] %files section includes a %defattr(...) line [/] Package consistently uses macros. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [/] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] -devel packages require base package with full versioning. [/] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [/] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [/] Filenames are valid UTF-8 -- 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