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=737263 --- Comment #6 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-10-29 18:38:22 EDT --- Some elements of the spec file have no effect in any released version of Fedora. Unless you plan to use this spec file with EPEL also, you can remove the BuildRoot tag, the "rm -rf %{buildroot}" line at the top of %install, the entire %clean script, and the %defattr at the top of %files. +: OK -: must be fixed =: should be fixed (at your discretion) N: not applicable MUST: [+] rpmlint output: phoronix-test-suite.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US benchmarking -> bench marking, bench-marking, benchmark phoronix-test-suite.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pts -> pt, ts, pets phoronix-test-suite.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/phoronix-test-suite phoronix-test-suite.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US benchmarking -> bench marking, bench-marking, benchmark phoronix-test-suite.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pts -> pt, ts, pets 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. The spelling warnings are bogus. How about the bash completion file, though? Should it be marked %config? [+] follows package naming guidelines [+] spec file base name matches package name [+] package meets the packaging guidelines: with the caveat that I don't really understand the PHP guidelines, but this package doesn't appear to meet the conditions established in those guidelines. [+] package uses a Fedora approved license [+] license field matches the actual license [+] license file is included in %doc [+] spec file is in American English [+] spec file is legible [+] sources match upstream: md5sum is 2f075538fbe45bb69b3e9d7bfef63948 for both [+] package builds on at least one primary arch (tried x86_64) [N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch [+] all build requirements in BuildRequires [N] spec file handles locales properly [N] ldconfig in %post and %postun [+] no bundled copies of system libraries [+] no relocatable packages [+] package owns all directories that it creates [+] no files listed twice in %files [+] proper permissions on files [+] consistent use of macros [+] code or permissible content [N] large documentation in -doc [+] no runtime dependencies in %doc [N] header files in -devel [N] static libraries in -static [N] .so in -devel [N] -devel requires main package [+] package contains no libtool archives [+] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install: actually desktop-file-validate, which is also okay [-] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages: owns the following dirs already owned by hicolor-icon-theme: /usr/share/icons/hicolor /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/mimetypes [+] all filenames in UTF-8 SHOULD: [N] query upstream for license text [N] description and summary contain available translations [+] package builds in mock: tried fedora-rawhide-i386 [+] package builds on all supported arches: tried i386 and x86_64 [+] package functions as described: minimal testing only [+] sane scriptlets [N] subpackages require the main package [N] placement of pkgconfig files [N] file dependencies versus package dependencies [+] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts -- 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