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=573910 --- Comment #31 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-04-20 10:43:28 EDT --- Ok, good. REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is not silent however all its messages can be safely omitted: work ~: rpmlint ~/Desktop/dcmtk-* dcmtk.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Offis -> Offs, Offish, Off is dcmtk.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US worklist -> work list, work-list, workstation ^^^ false positive dcmtk.src:92: W: macro-in-comment %{name} dcmtk.src:93: W: macro-in-comment %{name} dcmtk.src:94: W: macro-in-comment %{_lib} dcmtk.src:94: W: macro-in-comment %{name} dcmtk.src:112: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} dcmtk.src:112: W: macro-in-comment %{_lib} dcmtk.src:112: W: macro-in-comment %{name} dcmtk.src:113: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} dcmtk.src:113: W: macro-in-comment %{_lib} dcmtk.src:113: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} dcmtk.src:113: W: macro-in-comment %{_lib} dcmtk.src:113: W: macro-in-comment %{name} dcmtk.src:135: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysconfdir} dcmtk.src:135: W: macro-in-comment %{name} ^^^ that's ok - just a commented out strings. You should just remove them later dcmtk.src:69: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 68, tab: line 69) ^^ cosmetic. dcmtk.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Offis -> Offs, Offish, Off is dcmtk.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US worklist -> work list, work-list, workstation ^^^ false positives dcmtk.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/ld.so.conf.d/dcmtk.conf ^^^ That's by design. This file isn't designed to be replaced by user. dcmtk.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dcmsign-3.6.0 ^^^ that's ok. dcmtk-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ^^^ false positive. dcmtk-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ^^^ by design - we just don't provide any docs with devel sub-package. 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 23 warnings. work ~: + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum dcmtk-3.6.0.tar.gz* cfc509701122adfa359f1ee160e943c1548c7696b607dbb646c5a06f015ed33a dcmtk-3.6.0.tar.gz cfc509701122adfa359f1ee160e943c1548c7696b607dbb646c5a06f015ed33a dcmtk-3.6.0.tar.gz.1 sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See koji link above. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. + The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. 0 The package is not designed to be relocatable. - The package MUST own all directories that it creates. The following directories are left unowned: /etc/dcmtk /usr/lib64/dcmtk /usr/share/dcmtk /usr/share/doc/dcmtk-3.6.0 + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. 0 No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + Header files are stored in a -devel package. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. + The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a -devel package. + The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not a GUI application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Ok, please claim ownership on the directories mentioned above, and I'll continue. -- 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