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=736674 --- Comment #7 from Kalev Lember <kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-09-09 08:54:07 EDT --- Fedora review libgee06-0.6.1-4.fc15.src.rpm 2011-09-09 + OK ! needs attention $ rpmlint libgee06-0.6.1-4.fc16.src.rpm \ libgee06-0.6.1-4.fc16.x86_64.rpm \ libgee06-devel-0.6.1-4.fc16.x86_64.rpm \ libgee06-debuginfo-0.6.1-4.fc16.x86_64.rpm libgee06.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) GObject -> G Object, Object libgee06.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libgee -> lib gee, lib-gee, libel libgee06.src:9: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 9) libgee06.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) GObject -> G Object, Object libgee06.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libgee -> lib gee, lib-gee, libel libgee06.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libgee06-0.6.1/ChangeLog libgee06-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. ! Not strictly necessary, but would be nice to silence the mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs rpmlint warning and ask upstream to ship the ChangeLog file as UTF-8. Other warnings are just noise. + The package is named according to Fedora packaging guidelines + The spec file name matches the package base name + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The license field in the spec file matches the actual license + The package contains the license file (COPYING) + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible + Upstream sources match sources in the srpm. md5sum: 9cf60f41f3aa10ac7f1f7e1d094e05a1 libgee-0.6.1.tar.bz2 9cf60f41f3aa10ac7f1f7e1d094e05a1 Download/libgee-0.6.1.tar.bz2 + The package builds in koji n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires look sane n/a The spec file MUST handle locales properly + ldconfig in %post and %postun + Package does not bundle copies of system libraries n/a Package isn't relocatable + No duplicated files in %files section + Permissions are properly set + Consistent use of macros + The package must contain code or permissible content n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + Files marked %doc should not affect package + Header files should be in -devel n/a Static libraries should be in -static + Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package + -devel must require the fully versioned base + Packages should not contain libtool .la files n/a Packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + Directory ownership sane + Filenames are valid UTF-8 In addition to the rpmlint comment above, some small nits about the spec file, none of which would be review blockers: - Requires: pkgconfig in the -devel package is redundant because rpmbuild automatically generates a dep on /usr/bin/pkg-config - the 'rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT' at the beginning of %install and the %defattr(-,root,root,-) lines are no longer needed with recent rpmbuild - The comment "It's planned to provide bindings for further languages." in description is misleading because the package now includes gobject-introspection based bindings. -- 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