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=745219 Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kchamart@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-10-11 15:03:45 EDT --- rpmlint was very clean. =========== build@~/rpmbuild/SOURCES -> rpmlint ../SPECS/rvm.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. build@~/rpmbuild/SOURCES -> =========== here is my review: ############################################ OK - %{?dist} tag is used in release OK - The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK - The spec file name must match the base package %{name} OK - The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines OK - The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines (license is LGPLv2) NA - Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun OK - The package MUST successfully compile and build koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3423707 OK - The spec file must be written in American English. OK - The spec file for the package MUST be legible OK - The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. ======================== build@~/rpmbuild/SOURCES -> gpg rvm-1.17.tar.gz.asc gpg: Signature made Wed 24 Mar 2010 12:08:17 AM IST using DSA key ID 997007A2 gpg: Good signature from "Jan Harkes <jaharkes@xxxxxxxxxx>" gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner. Primary key fingerprint: 477F 78AA 863A 90A6 2366 4AA1 CE0D 7E10 9970 07A2 ======================== OK - A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings OK - Permissions on files must be set properly OK - Each package must have a %clean section OK - Each package must consistently use macros OK - The package must contain code, or permissible content OK - Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage -- No large documentation OK - If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application OK - Header files must be in a -devel package -- no devel package NA - Static libraries must be in a -static package -- no static package NA - Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' OK - Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives OK - No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK - All file names in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 OK - The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. ############################################ I didn't install and try the (successful)scratch build of rvm(and it's sub pkgs) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3423708 as there are some missing deps (lwp and lwp devel) -- the other two pkgs you needed. I see they're submitted for 'Package Change Request' Looks good. [I hope I didn't miss anything, I don't perform reviews as often]. This package is 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