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=679060 Kalev Lember <kalev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Kalev Lember <kalev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-05-02 04:37:34 EDT --- Fedora review mingw32-antlr-2.7.7-4.fc14.src.rpm 2011-05-02 + OK ! needs attention rpmlint output: $ rpmlint mingw32-antlr \ mingw32-antlr-static \ mingw32-antlr-debuginfo-2.7.7-4.fc15.noarch.rpm \ mingw32-antlr-2.7.7-4.fc15.src.rpm mingw32-antlr.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers -> parser, parses, parers mingw32-antlr.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary i686-pc-mingw32-antlr-config mingw32-antlr-static.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libantlr2.a mingw32-antlr-static.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw32-antlr-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources mingw32-antlr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers -> parser, parses, parers 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings. All these rpmlint warnings and errors are harmless and can be ignored. + rpmlint output + The package is named according to Fedora MinGW packaging guidelines + The spec file name matches the package base name + 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 spec file matches the actual license + The stated license is the same as the one for the corresponding native Fedora package + The package contains the license file (LICENSE.txt) + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible + Upstream sources match sources in the srpm. md5sum: 01cc9a2a454dd33dcd8c856ec89af090 antlr-2.7.7.tar.gz 01cc9a2a454dd33dcd8c856ec89af090 Download/antlr-2.7.7.tar.gz + The package builds in koji n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires look sane n/a The spec file MUST handle locales properly n/a ldconfig in %post and %postun + Package does not bundle copies of system libraries n/a Package isn't relocatable + Package owns all directories it creates + No duplicate files in %files + Permissions are properly set + Consistent use of macros + The package must contain code or permissible content n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + Files marked %doc should not affect package n/a Header files should be in -devel Fedora MinGW guidelines allow headers in main package + Static libraries should be in -static n/a Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base n/a Packages should not contain libtool .la files Fedora MinGW guidelines allow .la files n/a Packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + Directory ownership sane + Filenames are valid UTF-8 If you want to, you can also remove the %clean section and the %defattr lines which are also no longer required in current Fedora releases, before importing the package to git: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#.25clean http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#File_Permissions Looks good. 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