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=699168 --- Comment #6 from Volker FrÃhlich <volker27@xxxxxx> 2011-04-25 15:56:21 EDT --- [+] Good [x] Needs work [0] Does not apply MUST: ===== [+] rpmlint: routino.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dataset -> data set, data-set, database routino.x86_64: W: invalid-license AGPLv3+ routino.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary routino-filedumper routino.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary routino-planetsplitter routino.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary routino-planetsplitter-slim routino.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary routino-tagmodifier routino.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary routino-router routino.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary routino-filedumper-slim routino.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary routino-router-slim routino-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license AGPLv3+ routino.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dataset -> data set, data-set, database routino.src: W: invalid-license AGPLv3+ 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings. Upstream doesn't provide man-pages. AGPLv3+ was forgotten to be listed as a valid license. That's solved in the wiki so far (Spot). [+] Naming according to the Package Naming Guidelines [+] Spec file matches base package name [+] Packaging guidelines met [+] License approved for Fedora [+] License field in spec matches code [+] License file included, if source package includes it [+] Spec in American English [+] Spec is legible [+] Sources match upstream md5sum: a664772cfa7ba413cd16eae59321c644 [+] Compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one primary architecture: See KK above! [0] ExcludeArch is specified and commented [0] Locales are handled correctly [+] All build dependencies listed [0] Calls ldconfig for its shared libraries [0] No bundled system libraries [0] Stated as relocatable package [+] Owns all its directories or requires package that does [+] No file listing duplicates [+] File permissions correct [+] Consistent use of macros [+] Code or permissible content [0] Large documentation in -doc subpackage [+] No runtime dependency of files listed as %doc [0] Header files in -devel subpackage [0] Static files in -static subpackage [0] Library files without suffix in -devel subpackage [0] Devel-package requires base package [0] No .la libtool archives [0] GUI application includes properly installed %{name}.desktop file [+] No files or directories owned, that other packages own [+] Filenames in packages are UTF-8 SHOULD: ======= [0] Query upstream if no license text is included [+] Package builds in mock: Rawhide, EPEL 6 [?] Package works as described -- Haven't tried [0] Scriptlets are sane, if used [0] Subpackages other than -devel should require base package (versioned) [0] pkgconfig files in -devel subpackage [0] Dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself [x] Contain man pages, where they make sense Probably query upstream on this issue. -------- 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