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=690025 Tim Niemueller <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Tim Niemueller <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-10-11 17:56:20 EDT --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is silent + 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 License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (BSD). + The 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. + The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. #sha256sum ~/Downloads/cminpack-1.1.3.tar.gz eb319ad3eeb9e54076b2ac484058540dbd5db4a45928302a5fd1469aad5d4467 #sha256sum SOURCES/cminpack-1.1.3.tar.gz eb319ad3eeb9e54076b2ac484058540dbd5db4a45928302a5fd1469aad5d4467 + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. + Main package calls ldconfig in %post/%postun + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + 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 in -devel package 0 Static libraries are in -static package + pkg-config files are in -devel package + .so (no suffix) are in -devel package + -devel package requires base package, -static package requires -devel package + 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. Excellent package, using it for months now (sorry for the really long delay), no flaws in the spec and packaging. 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