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=701347 --- Comment #1 from Thomas Sailer <t.sailer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-05-02 13:27:21 EDT --- Fedora review mingw32-gtkmm30-3.0.0-1.fc15.src.rpm 2011-05-02 + OK ! needs attention rpmlint output: $ rpmlint mingw32-gtkmm30-3.0.0-1.fc15.src.rpm mingw32-gtkmm30.spec mingw32-gtkmm30.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gtkmm mingw32-gtkmm30.src:68: E: files-attr-not-set mingw32-gtkmm30.src:69: E: files-attr-not-set mingw32-gtkmm30.src:70: E: files-attr-not-set mingw32-gtkmm30.src:71: E: files-attr-not-set mingw32-gtkmm30.src:72: E: files-attr-not-set mingw32-gtkmm30.src:73: E: files-attr-not-set mingw32-gtkmm30.src:74: E: files-attr-not-set mingw32-gtkmm30.src:75: E: files-attr-not-set mingw32-gtkmm30.src:76: E: files-attr-not-set mingw32-gtkmm30.src:77: E: files-attr-not-set mingw32-gtkmm30.src:78: E: files-attr-not-set mingw32-gtkmm30.src:79: E: files-attr-not-set mingw32-gtkmm30.src:80: E: files-attr-not-set mingw32-gtkmm30.spec:68: E: files-attr-not-set mingw32-gtkmm30.spec:69: E: files-attr-not-set mingw32-gtkmm30.spec:70: E: files-attr-not-set mingw32-gtkmm30.spec:71: E: files-attr-not-set mingw32-gtkmm30.spec:72: E: files-attr-not-set mingw32-gtkmm30.spec:73: E: files-attr-not-set mingw32-gtkmm30.spec:74: E: files-attr-not-set mingw32-gtkmm30.spec:75: E: files-attr-not-set mingw32-gtkmm30.spec:76: E: files-attr-not-set mingw32-gtkmm30.spec:77: E: files-attr-not-set mingw32-gtkmm30.spec:78: E: files-attr-not-set mingw32-gtkmm30.spec:79: E: files-attr-not-set mingw32-gtkmm30.spec:80: E: files-attr-not-set 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 26 errors, 1 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: 90bb087152a3214c2cc348aa04f917c3 gtkmm-3.0.0.tar.bz2 90bb087152a3214c2cc348aa04f917c3 Download/gtkmm-3.0.0.tar.bz2 ! 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 n/a 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 Package cannot be scratch-built due to missing dependency (mingw32-gtk3). I suggest we first get mingw32-gtk3 in and then finalize this review. Thanks for doing this! -- 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