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=700862 Jon Ciesla <limb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |limb@xxxxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |limb@xxxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla <limb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-07-18 09:17:59 EDT --- Good: - rpmlint checks return: wmcalc.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dockapp -> dock app, dock-app, paddock The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. Ignore. wmcalc.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/wmcalc-0.3/COPYING The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. Fix, probably just need a new copy of the file. wmcalc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wmcalc Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. Include if available. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license ( GPLv2+ ) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file Fix: Change license tag to GPLv2+ Question: Does this or does this not need a .desktop file? Mock build in progress to double-check BRs. -- 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