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=703322 Golo Fuchert <packages@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #20 from Golo Fuchert <packages@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-06-13 06:02:28 EDT --- Everything looks fine to me now. Here is the review: ----- [+] = ok [o] = does not apply [-] = needs work ----- [+] rpmlint output: rpmlint RPMS/noarch/tpp-1.3.1-9.fc15.noarch.rpm SRPMS/tpp-1.3.1-9.fc15.src.rpm SPECS/tpp.spec tpp.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ncurses -> nurses, curses, n curses tpp.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ncurses -> nurses, curses, n curses tpp.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US framebuffer -> frame buffer, frame-buffer, framer tpp.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/tpp-1.3.1/COPYING tpp.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ncurses -> nurses, curses, n curses tpp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ncurses -> nurses, curses, n curses tpp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US framebuffer -> frame buffer, frame-buffer, framer 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings. The spelling errors are all ok, the fsf address has to be fixed upstream and is not a blocker. [+] The package is named according to the guidelines [+] Spec file name matches base package name [+] The package follows the Packaging Guidelines [+] The license is an approved licence (GPLv2) [+] The License field matches the actual licence [+] License file from source file is included in %doc [+] The spec file is written in American English [+] The spec file is legible [+] Packaged sources match with upstream sources (md5) md5sum tpp-1.3.1.tar.gz.{packaged,upstream} 35eebb38497e802df1faa57077dab2d1 tpp-1.3.1.tar.gz.packaged 35eebb38497e802df1faa57077dab2d1 tpp-1.3.1.tar.gz.upstream [+] Package build at least on one primary architecture [+] ExecludeArch is not known to be needed. [+] All build dependencies are listed in the BuildRequires section [o] No locales for the package [o] Package stores no shared libraries [+] Package does not bundle copies of system libraries [o] Package is not relocatable [+] Package owns all directories it installs. [+] No files are listed more then once in the %files section [+] File permissions are set properly (%defattr(...) is used) [+] Consistent use of macros [+] Package contains code and documentation only, no content [+] No large documentation files in the base package [+] %doc files do not affect runtime [o] No header files packaged [o] No static libraries included [o] library files ending with .so included in devel subpackage [o] no -devel subpackage [+] No libtool .la archives included [o] No GUI application, no need for a .desktop file [+] Package does not own files or directories that are owned by other packages (well, it owns %{_emacs_sitelispdir}, but this is a necessary exception, since emacs is not required) [+] All filenames are valid UTF-8 SHOULD items: [o] Source package does already include license text as a separate file from upstream. [o] No other Non-English languages supported. [+] The package builds in mock. [+] koji scratch build successful. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3127759 [+] Tested: tpp starts and an example presentation from the homepage is properly displayed. [+] No "exotic" scriptlets used. [o] No subpackages. [o] No pkgconfig(.pc) files. [o] No file dependencies. [+] Man page included. ----- ================ 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