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=733179 --- Comment #10 from Volker Fröhlich <volker27@xxxxxx> 2011-09-03 04:17:02 EDT --- The only thing to change is the macro use of %{buildroot} -- see below. Please try to contact upstream on shipping a license file. Review: [+] Good [-] Needs work [0] Does not apply MUST: ===== [+] rpmlint: [makerpm@fedora15 ~]$ rpmlint rpmbuild/SRPMS/filebench-1.4.9-3.el6.src.rpm rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/filebench-*1.4.9-3.fc15.x86_64.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 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 [+] License file included, if source package includes it [+] Spec in American English [+] Spec is legible [+] Sources match upstream md5sum: a78d9c6a3f9933d5b282b34e8172af0e [+] Compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one primary architecture: x86_64, i386 [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 --> Use either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [+] 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 [+] GUI application includes properly installed %{name}.desktop file [+] No files or directories owned, that other packages own [+] Filenames in packages are UTF-8 SHOULD: ======= [-] Query upstream if no license text is included [+] Package builds in mock: fedora-rawhide-x86_64, epel-6-x86_64, epel-5-i386 [+] Package works as described [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 [+] Contain man pages, where they make sense -- 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