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=683150 --- Comment #10 from Elder Marco <eldermarco@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-06-26 22:14:59 EDT --- Hi Christoph, thanks for your review. SPEC URL: http://eldermarco.fedorapeople.org/files/specs/yad.spec SRPM URL: http://eldermarco.fedorapeople.org/files/srpms/yad-0.12.3-2.fc15.src.rpm > > (In reply to comment #3) > > - The URL is correct. I don't know why this happens.. > > It's a bug in rpmlint and happens to all googlecode projects. spectool works > fine: > Thanks. > FIX - MUST: License field in spec file does not match the actual license: If > you look into the headers of the source code you will see "or (at your option) > any later version." This means GPLv3+ rather than GPLv3 Fixed. Now, the license field is GPLv3+ > FIX - MUST: spec is legible: it is legible, but could be a little better. > -- Please only indent lines if a command from the previous line continues. > Lines 47, 51, 53, 55 and 65 should not be indented. > -- Line 45 is indented with 8 spaces, other only use 4. Please use the same > indention all the time. > -- Please use the full length of a line for the description, up to 80 > characters Fixed. > Well... - SHOULD: package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf > %{buildroot}. Added clean section again > > Things that need fixing: > > - You don't need no yad-devel package. Drop the m4 file and move the > icon-browser to the base package. There's no yad-devel now. > - Please don't use macros for simple things like %{__rm} or %{__make}. You > never know if/how they are defined. Fixed. Using rm, make, etc instead %{__rm}, %{__make}, etc. > - The file AUTHORS needs to be in %doc Added. > - Don't specify the manpage with extension. We might switch from gz to another > compression method. %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1.* is fine. Fixed. > Things that should eventually be fixed: > > - Bring back BuildRoot and %clean for compatibility. Added BuildRoot field and %clean section again. > - Get in touch with touch with upstream and tell him that the FSF address is > outdated. Even better: Provide a patch. I sent a message for him. Unfortunately, I do not know how to generate a patch from svn.. Thanks again. -- 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