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=665733 --- Comment #9 from Richard Shaw <hobbes1069@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-12-02 12:49:51 EST --- +: OK -: must be fixed =: should be fixed (at your discretion) ?: Question or clairification needed N: not applicable MUST: [+] rpmlint output: shown in comment. [+] follows package naming guidelines [+] spec file base name matches package name [+] package meets the packaging guidelines [+] package uses a Fedora approved license: GPLv2+ [+] license field matches the actual license: Actual source is GPLv2. [+] license file is included in %doc: LICENSE.GPL [+] spec file is in American English [+] spec file is legible [+] sources match upstream: md5sum matches (1538682f8d92cdf03e845c786879fbea) [+] package builds on at least one primary arch: Tested F15 x86_64 [N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch [+] all build requirements in BuildRequires [N] spec file handles locales properly [+] ldconfig in %post and %postun [+] no bundled copies of system libraries [N] 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 [=] large documentation in -doc [+] no runtime dependencies in %doc [+] header files in -devel [N] static libraries in -static [+] .so in -devel [?] -devel requires main package [+] package contains no libtool archives [N] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install/validate [+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages [+] all filenames in UTF-8 SHOULD: [+] query upstream for license text [N] description and summary contains available translations [+] package builds in mock [+] package builds on all supported arches: Tested x86_64 [?] package functions as described: Used as BR for two other programs. [+] sane scriptlets [+] subpackages require the main package [+] placement of pkgconfig files [N] file dependencies versus package dependencies [+] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts Only 3 items remain: 1. Spec file says GPLv2+ not GPLv2. 2. The question about a doc package 3. The Require of the main package from the devel package is not arch specific but the -devel package is not "noarch". In %package devel change: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} to Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} -- 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