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=757861 Christoph Wickert <cwickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-11-28 17:56:34 EST --- REVIEW FOR 4cf504130930f8f63480115f4a6a303f ktimer-4.7.80-1.fc16.src.rpm MUST items FIX - MUST: rpmlint output: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/ktimer-* ktimer.src:8: W: macro-in-comment %{name} ktimer.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ftp://ftp.kde.org/pub/kde/stable/4.7.80/src/ktimer-4.7.80.tar.bz2 <urlopen error ftp error: 550 Failed to change directory.> ktimer.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/applications/kde4/ktimer.desktop ktimer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ktimer 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. Source URL needs to be fixed, the rest is ok. The desktop files are executable on purpose. The macro-in-comment warning is caused by the commented out URL line; remove if it not going to be used anymore. OK - MUST: package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines OK - MUST: spec file name matches the base package in the format %{name}.spec OK - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines OK - MUST: package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines: GPLv2+ OK - MUST: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license: GPLv2+ FIX - MUST: source package includes the text of the license in its own file but that file is not included in %doc OK - MUST: spec file is written in American English OK - MUST: spec file for the package is legible OK - MUST: sources match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL by md5 91a0db7dc3565b31064338325c97d7d4 OK - MUST: package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture N/A - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch OK - MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires OK - MUST: spec file handles locales properly using %find_lang N/A - MUST: package (or subpackage) stores shared library files in the dynamic linker's default paths and call ldconfig in %post and %postun OK - MUST: package does not bundle copies of system libraries OK - MUST: package is not designed to be relocatable OK - MUST: package owns all directories that it creates OK - MUST: package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings OK - MUST: permissions on files are set properly OK - MUST: package consistently use macros OK - MUST: package contains code, or permissable content N/A - MUST: large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage OK - MUST: files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application N/A - MUST: header files are in -devel package N/A - MUST: static libraries are in -static package N/A - MUST: library files without a suffix are in -devel package N/A - MUST: -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency OK - MUST: package does not contain any .la libtool archives OK - MUST: package contains a GUI application and includes a %{name}.desktop file that is properly validated with desktop-file-validate OK - MUST: package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK - MUST: all filenames in the package are valid UTF-8 SHOULD items N/A - SHOULD: source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, query upstream to include it N/A - SHOULD: description and summary sections should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available OK - SHOULD: package builds in mock OK - SHOULD: package compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures OK - SHOULD: package functions as described OK - SHOULD: scriptlets are sane N/A - SHOULD: subpackages other than devel require the base package using a fully versioned dependency N/A - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files are in -devel package OK - SHOULD: package has no file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin N/A - SHOULD: package contains man pages for binaries/scripts OTHER items OK - latest (un)stable version packaged FIX - source URL is invalid: 'stable' should be 'unstable' OK - compiler flags ok OK - debuginfo complete N/A - package contains a pkgconfig(.pc) files and has 'Requires: pkgconfig'. ISSUES - Include COPYING in package - desktop-file-validate should be in %install not in %check NOTES - %setup -q -n %{name}-%{version} is the same as %setup -q - consider adding a %clean section and a %defattr line for compatibility with older versions of rpm Please fix the issues and consider the package 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