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=694651 Golo Fuchert <packages@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Golo Fuchert <packages@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-04-17 17:00:28 EDT --- Here we go with the review: ----- [+] = ok [o] = does not apply [-] = needs work ----- [+] rpmlint is not quiet yet, but all warnings will be addressed before the build rpmlint ./SPECS/IBSimu.spec ./SRPMS/IBSimu-1.0.4-2.fc14.src.rpm ./RPMS/i686/IBSimu-1.0.4-2.fc14.i686.rpm ./RPMS/i686/IBSimu-devel-1.0.4-2.fc14.i686.rpm ./SPECS/IBSimu.spec:15: W: macro-in-comment %40jyu IBSimu.src:15: W: macro-in-comment %40jyu 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [+] The package is named according to the guidelines [+] Spec file name matches base package name [+] The package follows the Packaging Guidelines [+] The license is an approved licence (GPLv2+) [+] The License field matches the actual licence [+] License file from source file is included in %doc [+] The spec file is written in American English [+] The spec file is legible [+] Packaged sources match with upstream sources (md5) md5sum libibsimu-1.0.4.tar.gz.* 00a0b5b4156b1f908a975de99af4b85c libibsimu-1.0.4.tar.gz.packaged 00a0b5b4156b1f908a975de99af4b85c libibsimu-1.0.4.tar.gz.upstream [+] Package build at least on one primary architecture [+] ExecludeArch is not known to be needed. [+] All build dependencies are listed in the BuildRequires section [o] No locales for the package [+] Package stores shared libraries and calls ldconfig in %post/%postun [+] Package does not bundle copies of system libraries [o] Package is not relocatable [+] Package owns all directories it installs. [+] No files are listed more then once in the %files section [+] File permissions are set properly (%defattr(...) is used) [+] Consistent use of macros [+] Package contains code and documentation only, no content [+] No large documentation files (well, not large in size at least) [+] %doc files do not affect runtime [+] Header files packaged into a devel package [o] No static libraries included [o] library files ending with .so included in devel subpackage [+] -devel subpackage properly requires base package [+] No libtool .la archives included [o] No GUI application, no need for a .desktop file [+] Package does not own files or directories that are owned by other packages [+] All filenames are valid UTF-8 SHOULD items: [o] Source package does already include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream. [o] No other Non-English languages supported. [+] The package builds in mock. [o] No koji scratch build because of conditional build macros. [o] No "runnable" program packaged to test. [+] No "exotic" scriptlets used. [o] No other subpackages other than devel. [+] pkgconfig(.pc) files placed in -devel pkg. [o] No file dependencies. [o] No binaries/scripts -> no man pages needed ----- Comments: - The packager might consider if a -doc subpackage is appropriate (large number of files but small size), however, the present state is totally acceptable. - The only minor issues were addressed in comment #1 and will be fixed. ----- APPROVED -- 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