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=706357 JaromÃr CÃpÃk <jcapik@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from JaromÃr CÃpÃk <jcapik@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-06-07 11:49:10 EDT --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: fedora-15-x86_64 [x] Rpmlint output: $ rpmlint lsw-0.2-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm lsw.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stdout -> stout, std out, std-out 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint lsw-debuginfo-0.2-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint lsw-0.2-1.fc15.src.rpm lsw.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stdout -> stout, std out, std-out 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Package does NOT include BuildRoot tag, clean section or buildroot removal in install section [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: MIT [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package : 5ddd61d04ff084a39494b2aa06c00b65 MD5SUM upstream package: 5ddd61d04ff084a39494b2aa06c00b65 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch, OR: Arches excluded: - Why: - [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly -- package requires gettext and uses find_lang, if applicable [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-] All desktop files are installed by desktop-file-install or justified otherwise [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] Package does NOT include/bundle any pre-built binaries or libraries, fonts or other general purpose data [x] Changelog present in the spec file and is properly formatted [x] Package does NOT include Packager, Vendor, Copyright or PreReq tags [x] All documentation prefixed with %doc [x] No files in %doc are needed at run-time [x] Compiler flags honor Fedora defaults or are justified [x] Package generates useful debuginfo packages [x] Package contains no static executables unless approved by FESCo [-] All config files are marked noreplace or justified otherwise [x] No config files are located under /usr [-] Package contains a SystemV-compatible initscript, if applicable [-] makeinstall macro is used only if make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} does NOT work [-] globals used in place of defines [x] Package does NOT cause any conflicts [x] Package does NOT contain kernel modules [x] Final Requires and Provides are sane [x] Macros in Summary and description are expandable at build-time === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 [x] Package should preserve files timestamps [x] Package does NOT explicitly BuildRequire bash, bzip2, coreutils, cpio, diffutils, fedora-release, findutils, gawk, gcc, gcc-c++, grep, gzip, info, make, patch, redhat-rpm-config, rpm-build, sed, shadow-utils, tar, unzip, util-linux-ng, which or xz [x] Package functions as described. [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [-] File based requires are sane. ================ *** 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