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=713677 Mario Ceresa <mrceresa@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |mrceresa@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #9 from Mario Ceresa <mrceresa@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-08-02 05:09:06 EDT --- I'll review it! Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable - rpmlint is silent? klt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Multi -> Mulch, Mufti klt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US affine -> caffeine, fine klt-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation klt-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation those can be ignored klt.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libklt.so.1.3.4 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 here there is not much we can do except report it to the mantainer, if available. + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. - The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. 784776f0160acc4f73c88b01bdf88053 http://www.ces.clemson.edu/~stb/klt/klt1.3.4.zip I cannot check the md5sum for the srpm because the uploaded one is corrupted and won't install. Please re-upload so I can check the mkd5sum + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3246001 + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. + Shared library files are correctly handled (soname + ldconfig) + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. 0 The package is not designed to be relocatable. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. + No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + Header files are stored in a -devel package. - No static libraries. See comment 6 above + No pkgconfig(.pc) files. + The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a *-devel package. + The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not a GUI application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Please re-upload the srpm so I can check the md5sum of the source files and I'll approve the package -- 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