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=689961 Theodore Lee <theo148@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |theo148@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Theodore Lee <theo148@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-05-18 08:48:08 EDT --- I'm an unsponsored packager, so this review is purely informal. MUST Items ========== ! - rpmlint must be run on all rpms $ rpmlint lego-udevrules-1.0-1.fc15.src.rpm lego-udevrules.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US udev -> devout lego-udevrules.src: W: no-%build-section lego-udevrules.src:8: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 8, tab: line 1) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. $ rpmlint lego-udevrules-1.0-1.fc15.noarch.rpm lego-udevrules.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/udev/rules.d/30-lego.rules 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. After install: $ rpmlint lego-udevrules lego-udevrules.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/udev/rules.d/30-lego.rules 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. OK - Package must meet naming guidelines OK - Spec file name must match base package name OK - Package must meet packaging guidelines OK - Package must meet licensing guidelines OK - License tag must match actual license N/A - Any license files must be in %doc OK - Spec file must be in American English OK - Spec file must be legible N/A - Sources must match upstream OK - Package must build on at least one primary arch Builds in mock on x86_64. N/A - Arches that the package doesn't build on must be excluded with a relevant bug OK - All necessary build dependencies must be in BuildRequires N/A - Locales must be handled properly N/A - Binary rpms containing libraries must call ldconfig OK - Package must not bundle system libraries N/A - Relocatable packages must have rationalization OK - Package must own all directories it creates OK - Package must not list a file more than once in %files OK - Files must have correct permissions OK - Macros must be consistent OK - Package must contain code or permissible content N/A - Large documentation files must be in a -doc subpackage OK - %doc files must not affect program operation N/A - Header files must be in a -devel subpackage N/A - Static libraries must be in a -static package N/A - Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package N/A - -devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency OK - Package must NOT contain any .la libtool archives N/A - Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file OK - Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK - All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items ============ ! - If the package is missing license text in a separate file, the packager should query upstream for it N/A - Description and summary should contain translations if available OK - Package should build in mock N/A - Package should build on all supported architectures OK - Package should function as described Tested with an NXT Intelligent Brick: # stat /dev/bus/usb/002/006 File: `/dev/bus/usb/002/006' Size: 0 Blocks: 0 IO Block: 4096 character special file Device: 5h/5d Inode: 858980 Links: 1 Device type: bd,85 Access: (0664/crw-rw-r--) Uid: ( 0/ root) Gid: ( 486/ lego) Access: 2011-05-18 20:39:42.474714231 +0800 Modify: 2011-05-18 20:39:42.474714231 +0800 Change: 2011-05-18 20:39:42.474714231 +0800 Birth: - The mode key doesn't seem to be applied, but I'm not sure that's an issue. OK - Scriptlets should be sane N/A - Non-devel subpackages should require the base package with a full version N/A - pkgconfig files should be placed appropriately N/A - File dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin should require package instead N/A - Binaries/scripts should have man pages Issues ====== 1) The package should contain a %build section, even if it's empty. 2) There's some rogue indentation on line 8. 3) The package is missing a license file - it does seem like overkill for a couple of udev rules though. I don't see any blocking issues here, so were I a package maintainer, I would declare this package 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