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=641572 --- Comment #10 from Dominic Hopf <dmaphy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-04-03 13:48:43 EDT --- % rpmlint celt071.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. % rpmlint celt071-0.7.1-1.fc13.src.rpm celt071.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec -> cosec, codex, code celt071.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> cosec, codex, code celt071.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US realtime -> mealtime, real time, real-time celt071.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codecs -> codes, coders, code's celt071.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitstream -> bit stream, bit-stream, midstream celt071.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US installable -> install able, install-able, uninstallable 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. % rpmlint celt071-0.7.1-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm celt071-devel-0.7.1-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm celt071-debuginfo-0.7.1-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm celt071.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec -> cosec, codex, code celt071.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> cosec, codex, code celt071.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US realtime -> mealtime, real time, real-time celt071.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codecs -> codes, coders, code's celt071.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitstream -> bit stream, bit-stream, midstream celt071.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US installable -> install able, install-able, uninstallable celt071.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary celtdec071 celt071.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary celtenc071 celt071-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings. I'm no native english speaker, but I guess you can at least add the spaces in "real time" and "bit stream". Any other warning can be ignored. Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [x] Specfile name matches %{name}.spec [x] Package seems to meet Packaging Guidelines [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one supported architecture. Builds fine with rpmbuild on Fedora 14 x86_64. [x] Rpmlint output: source RPM: only spelling warnings, see above. binary RPM: see above. [x] Package is not relocatable. [!] License in specfile matches actual License and meets Licensing Guidelines License: BSD The files tools/getopt1.c and tools/getopt_win.h are GPLv2+. Since they are used to build the binaries celtenc071 and celtdec071 which are installed by the package, the License rather should be: BSD and GPLv2+ [X] License file is included in %doc. [x] Specfile is legible and written in AE [x] Sourcefile in the Package is the same as provided in the mentioned Source SHA1SUM of Source: 39ffceae34a570dd787bce39a0a720682cc47fb0 [x] Package compiles successfully [!] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires There is a missing dependency to libtool. Some scratch builds with mock and koji failed because of this. See http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2970161 and http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2970169 [-] Specfile handles locales properly [x] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required [x] Package owns directorys it creates [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not list a file more than once in the %files listing [x] %files section includes %defattr and permissions are set properly [x] %clean section is there and contains rm -rf %{buildroot} [!] Macros are consistently used You are mixing the notation for the buildroot, line 56 has $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, line 64 %{buildroot}. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage [x] Program runs properly without files listed in %doc [x] Header files are in a -devel package [-] Static libraries are in a -static package [x] Package requires pkgconfig if .pc files are present [x] .so-files are put into a -devel subpackage [x] Subpackages include fully versioned dependency for the base package [x] Any libtool archives (*.la) are removed [-] contains desktop file (%{name}.desktop) if it is a GUI application [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [!] $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is removed at beginning of %install [-] Filenames are encoded in UTF-8 === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Package contains latest upstream version [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] non-English translations for description and summary [x] Package builds in mock Tested on: F14/x86_64 [x] Package should compile and build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures. tested build with koji [x] Program runs [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x] pkgconfig (*.pc) files are placed in a -devel package [-] require package providing a file instead of the file itself no files outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin are required -- 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