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=728757 --- Comment #3 from Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-08-10 09:38:50 EDT --- Review follows. MUST items: - rpmlint output is ok gnumed.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C gnumed gnumed.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sebastian -> Sebastian gnumed.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hilbert -> Hilbert, filbert, Dilbert gnumed.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gmx -> gm, gm x gnumed.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US karsten -> Kirsten gnumed.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/gnumed-0.9.9/GnuPublicLicense.txt gnumed.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C gnumed gnumed.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wxpython -> python, Python gnumed.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sebastian -> Sebastian gnumed.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hilbert -> Hilbert, filbert, Dilbert gnumed.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gmx -> gm, gm x gnumed.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US karsten -> Kirsten 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 11 warnings. Please ask upstream to update the FSF address and consider expanding the summary a bit. Not blockers. - package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines - the spec file name matches the base package %{name} ? the package meets the Packaging Guidelines - some Requires seem odd, are aspell, file, mx, kdepim, texlive really needed? - is there a point in installing man pages for binaries that are not packaged? ? the license is GPL, but the version is unclear. The sources only mention GPL. Please ask upstream to add a README file to clarify under which GPL version it's licensed or include an email with their response, as stated in the Fedora Licensing Guidelines. - the package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines (GPLv?) ? the License field in the package spec file may not match the actual license (unknown yet) - file containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc - the spec file is written in American English - the spec file for the package is legible - I'd suggest to wrap the installation of locales in a for loop - the source used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL ec0abfd95dcf8b5cfbca5368dcfcc99d gnumed-client.0.9.9.tgz - the package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture (x86_64) - all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines - the spec file handles locales properly - the package doesn't bundle copies of system libraries - the package owns all directories that it creates or depends on packages that provide them - 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 consistently uses macros - the package contains code, or permissable content - all filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8 SHOULD items: - the package builds in mock - the package contains man pages for binaries/scripts - I've not tested whether the package functions as described -- 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