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=708475 Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-05-31 23:33:47 EDT --- Unless you plan to use this spec file with EPEL also, you can remove the BuildRoot tag, "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" at the top of %install, the %clean section, and the %defattr line in %files. +: OK -: must be fixed =: should be fixed (at your discretion) N: not applicable MUST: [+] rpmlint output: shown in comment 1 (slightly different spelling suggestions, but otherwise identical on my machine) [+] follows package naming guidelines [+] spec file base name matches package name [=] package meets the packaging guidelines: the canonical URL for Source0 is actually http://downloads.sourceforge.net/pysdm/pysdm-0.4.1.tar.gz, as noted in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Sourceforge.net. [+] package uses a Fedora approved license [-] license field matches the actual license: I don't see any license statements, except on bundled code, and the top-level COPYING file is the LGPL. Where did "GPLv2" come from? [+] license file is included in %doc [+] spec file is in American English [+] spec file is legible [+] sources match upstream: md5sum is bc3b671ac95065c5121e056d820fd0a2 for both [+] package builds on at least one primary arch (tried x86_64) [N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch [+] all build requirements in BuildRequires [+] spec file handles locales properly [N] ldconfig in %post and %postun [-] no bundled copies of system libraries: This package bundles two files from tepache (https://launchpad.net/tepache), namely tepache.py and SimpleGladeApp.py. [N] no relocatable packages [+] package owns all directories that it creates [+] no files listed twice in %files [+] proper permissions on files [+] consistent use of macros [+] code or permissible content [N] large documentation in -doc [+] no runtime dependencies in %doc [N] header files in -devel [N] static libraries in -static [N] .so in -devel [N] -devel requires main package [+] package contains no libtool archives [+] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install [+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages [+] all filenames in UTF-8 SHOULD: [N] query upstream for license text [N] description and summary contains available translations [+] package builds in mock: tried fedora-rawhide-i386 [+] package builds on all supported arches: tried i386 and x86_64 [+] package functions as described: minimal testing only [+] sane scriptlets [N] subpackages require the main package [N] placement of pkgconfig files [N] file dependencies versus package dependencies [=] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts -- 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