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=702103 --- Comment #9 from Volker Fröhlich <volker27@xxxxxx> 2011-07-16 08:37:53 EDT --- osmgpsmapmodule.c says, it was GPLv2. The package says GPLv3. You can use the name macro in source0. -------------------------------------------------------- Review: [+] Good [-] Needs work [0] Does not apply MUST: ===== [+] rpmlint: [makerpm@lenovo SRPMS]$ rpmlint python-osmgpsmap-0.7.3-3.fc15.src.rpm ../RPMS/x86_64/python-osmgpsmap-* python-osmgpsmap.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) osm -> oms, ism, om python-osmgpsmap.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) gps -> fps, gs, gaps python-osmgpsmap.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openstreetmap -> premenstrual python-osmgpsmap.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) osm -> oms, ism, om python-osmgpsmap.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) gps -> fps, gs, gaps python-osmgpsmap.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openstreetmap -> premenstrual 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. [+] Naming according to the Package Naming Guidelines [+] Spec file matches base package name [+] Packaging guidelines met [+] License approved for Fedora [-] License field in spec matches code: osmgpsmapmodule.c says, it was GPLv2. [+] License file included, if source package includes it [+] Spec in American English [+] Spec is legible [+] Sources match upstream md5sum: a146583c13b9d77d8d003ee87916454d [+] Compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one primary architecture: [0] ExcludeArch is specified and commented [0] Locales are handled correctly [+] All build dependencies listed [0] Calls ldconfig for its shared libraries [+] No bundled system libraries [0] Stated as relocatable package [+] Owns all its directories or requires package that does [+] No file listing duplicates [+] File permissions correct [+] Consistent use of macros [+] Code or permissible content [0] Large documentation in -doc subpackage [+] No runtime dependency of files listed as %doc [0] Header files in -devel subpackage [0] Static files in -static subpackage [0] Library files without suffix in -devel subpackage [0] Devel-package requires base package [0] No .la libtool archives [0] GUI application includes properly installed %{name}.desktop file [+] No files or directories owned, that other packages own [+] Filenames in packages are UTF-8 [+] Python eggs built from source [+] Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process [0] When building a compat package, it must install using easy_install -m so it won't conflict with the main package. [0] When building multiple versions (for a compat package) one of the packages must contain a default version that is usable via "import MODULE" with no prior setup. SHOULD: ======= [0] Query upstream if no license text is included [+] Package builds in mock: mock rebuild -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 python-osmgpsmap-0.7.3-3.fc15.src.rpm mock rebuild -r fedora-15-x86_64 python-osmgpsmap-0.7.3-3.fc15.src.rpm mock rebuild -r fedora-14-x86_64 python-osmgpsmap-0.7.3-3.fc15.src.rpm [?] Package works as described -- Haven't tried [0] Scriptlets are sane, if used [0] Subpackages other than -devel should require base package (versioned) [0] pkgconfig files in -devel subpackage [0] Dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself [0] Contain man pages, where they make sense [+] A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. -- 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