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=691317 --- Comment #5 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-03-31 08:48:46 EDT --- There are several issues still, see review below: * TODO Review [60%] - [X] Names [2/2] - [X] Package name - [X] Spec name - [X] Package version [2/2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Package_Versioning - [X] Version number http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Version_Tag - [X] Release tag http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Release_Tag http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages - [X] Meets [[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines][guidelines]] - [X] Source files match upstream $ sha1sum mash-0.1.0.tar.bz2 ../SOURCES/mash-0.1.0.tar.bz2 162242e7008c76b1a481db10bb32c0d5454a94ff mash-0.1.0.tar.bz2 162242e7008c76b1a481db10bb32c0d5454a94ff ../SOURCES/mash-0.1.0.tar.bz2 - [-] [[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries][No bundled libraries]] bundles RPly: http://w3.impa.br/~diego/software/rply/ - [-] License [3/4] - [X] License is Fedora-approved - [X] No licensing conflict - [-] License field accurate see bundled issue. RPly is under MIT, must be mentioned if bundling is approved - [X] License included iff packaged by upstream - [X] rpmlint [2/2] - [X] on src.rpm libmash.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US animatable -> stableman, imitable 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. ==> safe to ignore - [X] on x86_64.rpm libmash.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US animatable -> stableman, imitable 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. - [-] Language & locale [2/3] - [X] Spec in US English - [-] Spec legible the word 'Mash' probably should not be in the summary (rpmlint does not catch it because it's not libmash) - [X] Use %find_lang to handle locale files N/A - [-] Build [1/3] - [X] Koji results http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2963278 - [-] BRs complete There's an optional dependency on libmx, should it not be added as a BR? - [-] Directory ownership - girepository-1.0 is owned by gdk-pixbuf2 so it's probably OK - but %{_datadir}/gir-1.0 is not owned by any package pulled in by mash - [-] Spec inspection [8/10] - [X] ldconfig for libraries - [X] No duplicate files - [X] File permissions - [X] Filenames must be UTF-8 - [X] no BuildRoot definition ([[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag][except if targeting EPEL5]]) - [X] No %clean section (except for RHEL: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean) - [-] %buildroot cleaned on %install This still needs to be done - [X] Macro usage consistent - [-] Documentation [2/3] - [X] If large docs, separate -doc N/A - [X] %doc files are non-essential - [-] Relevant docs packaged Shouldn't README be included? - [X] Development [5/5] - [X] Headers in -devel - [X] If versioned .so's, unversioned in -devel - [X] Static only if necessary, put in -static N/A - [X] -devel, -static requires main - [X] No .la -- 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