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=676129 Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|erik-fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |mschmidt@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #20 from Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-04-08 09:03:21 EDT --- rpmlint output: qconf.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) qmake -> make, quake, q make qconf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US qmake -> make, quake, q make qconf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autotools -> auto tools, auto-tools, autopilots qconf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni qconf.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) qmake -> make, quake, q make qconf.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US qmake -> make, quake, q make qconf.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autotools -> auto tools, auto-tools, autopilots qconf.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni qconf.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/qconf/conf/conf4.h qconf.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/qconf/conf/conf4.cpp qconf.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/qconf/conf/conf.cpp qconf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qconf The warnings about spelling errors are bogus. The missing manual page is unfortunate, but not a blocker. The devel-file-in-non-devel-package warnings are false positives. If I understand qconf correctly, the files are necessary to its operation. Formal checks: "OK" means the package matches the guideline "??" means unclear status, needs explanation "--" means the guideline it not relevant "ERR" signifies a problem Checking with respect to the Packaging Guidelines (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines): OK - naming OK - version and release OK - licensing "GPLv2+ with exceptions" because the sources have the usual GPLv2-or-later header and the COPYING file gives an extra permission on top of GPLv2 permissions. OK - no pre-built binaries OK - spec legible OK - no architecture excluded OK - filesystem layout OK - rpmlint, see above OK - changelog OK - tags OK - BuildRoot tag, not used, not necessary OK - %clean, not used, not necessary OK - Requires, no explicit ones OK - BuildRequires OK - summary and description OK - encoding, ASCII OK - documentation OK - compiler flags OK - debuginfo packages -- - devel packages -- - requiring base package -- - static libraries OK - no duplication of system libraries OK - rpath, none -- - configuration files -- - initscripts -- - desktop files OK - macros -- - %global preferred over %define -- - locale files OK - timestamps OK - parallel make -- - scriptlets -- - conditional deps OK - relocatable packages, not OK - code vs content OK - file and dir ownership -- - users and groups -- - web apps ERR- conflicts: - the package "gridengine" also provides /usr/bin/qconf - You'll need to resolve somehow. Follow the hints at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Conflicting_Files OK - no kernel modules OK - no files under /srv OK - no bundling of multiple projects ?? - patches should have an upstream bug link or comment - it is unclear to me whether qconf-1.4-optflags.patch is going to be Fedora-specific forever or if it's going to be resolved in the upstream project. OK - use of epochs, none -- - symlinks -- - man pages, would be nice to have though -- - test suites -- - tmpfiles.d -- - application-specific guidelines Steps of the Review Guidelines (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines): OK - rpmlint OK - Naming Guidelines OK - spec name matches package %{name} ERR- Packaging Guidelines, see above OK - approved license OK - license tag matches OK - COPYING in %doc OK - US English OK - legible OK - source checksum, sha256sum: 212bce09a585a22cf4b9e1a881e8f79c32a82e5cb8ea7f99a056a50faf809af8 qconf-1.4.tar.bz2 OK - builds on all archs OK - BuildRequires -- - locales -- - ldconfig OK - no bundling -- - not relocatable OK - file ownership OK - no duplicate files OK - sane permissions OK - macros OK - code or content -- - large doc OK - %doc not essential to runtime OK - header files to be in -devel - the headers included in the package are needed for its operation -- - no static libs -- - dynamic libs -- - devel packages' reqs -- - *.la files -- - desktop files for GUI apps OK - no ownership of other packages' files OK - valid filenames -- 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