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=722914 Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2011-07-19 22:55:49 EDT --- - As a courtesy to people reading your spec files, please don't use macros in the URL if they're not absolutely necessary. - Patch0 is missing a description in the spec file. Please document what it does. Has it been sent upstream? - Where is Source1 from? Has it been sent upstream? *** rpmlint output: volumeicon.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US systray -> stray volumeicon.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stepsize -> step size, step-size, stepsister volumeicon.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US systray -> stray volumeicon.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stepsize -> step size, step-size, stepsister volumeicon.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary volumeicon 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. These are OK. *** MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. NEEDSWORK - As pointed out by Veeti, you're mixing styles. MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK - License is GPLv3. MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK $ md5sum volumeicon-0.4.1.tar.gz ../SOURCES/volumeicon-0.4.1.tar.gz a63e83b8a5d41dca38d077934bce9fcf volumeicon-0.4.1.tar.gz a63e83b8a5d41dca38d077934bce9fcf ../SOURCES/volumeicon-0.4.1.tar.gz MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK - You're missing a %defattr line, but it seems to be defaulted on current RPM versions... - Maybe add it, just in case? I don't have time now to investigate. MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. NEEDSWORK - As pointed out earlier, README is inrelevant. MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. OK MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK EPEL: Clean section exists. OK EPEL: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK EPEL: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A Please address issues before import to git. This package has been 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