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=698067 Volker FrÃhlich <volker27@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Volker FrÃhlich <volker27@xxxxxx> 2011-05-14 15:38:20 EDT --- It's common to leave out the full stop in the changelog, as it is more like a list of things. By the way: INSTALL_LIB seems to be useless. Must be some leftover. The summary says, the package was a "client". I think this should be "client library". I encourage you to create a sub-package for the test and example file, to keep the library package small, or delete it at all, if it is not useful. FYI: http://groups.google.com/group/linux.debian.devel.mentors/browse_thread/thread/b2f55966e1c58e69/c1f15d9e4289fe45?lnk=raot&fwc=1 ---------------------------------------- Review: [+] Good [-] Needs work [0] Does not apply MUST: ===== [+] rpmlint: [makerpm@fedora14 adapters]$ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/hiredis-0.10.0-2.fc14.src.rpm ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/hiredis-*0.10.0-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm hiredis.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) minimalistic -> minimalist, Minimalist, minimalism hiredis.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minimalistic -> minimalist, Minimalist, minimalism hiredis.src: W: invalid-url Source0: antirez-hiredis-v0.10.0-3-gdf203bc.tar.gz hiredis.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) minimalistic -> minimalist, Minimalist, minimalism hiredis.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minimalistic -> minimalist, Minimalist, minimalism hiredis.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hiredis-example hiredis.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hiredis-test 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. [+] 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: b32b930e5e1ee007594c1056c3ff1c0e [+] Compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one primary architecture [0] ExcludeArch is specified and commented [0] Locales are handled correctly [+] All build dependencies listed [+] Calls ldconfig for its shared libraries [+] 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 [+] Header files in -devel subpackage [0] Static files in -static subpackage [+] Library files without suffix in -devel subpackage [+] 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: Tried epel-6-x86_64 and fedora-rawhide-i386 [?] 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 [0] Contain man pages, where they make sense -------- 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