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=759712 Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-12-15 19:14:33 EST --- I'll take this review. Quick note: the %defattr in %files is no longer needed. Also, I had some kind of problem with the gcc versioning. I tried to install after building: # rpm -i dragonegg-3.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm error: Failed dependencies: gcc = 4.6.2-1.fc17 is needed by dragonegg-3.0-1.fc17.x86_64 # rpm -q gcc gcc-4.6.2-1.fc17.1.x86_64 Legend: +: OK -: must be fixed =: should be fixed (at your discretion) N: not applicable MUST: [+] rpmlint output: dragonegg.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) optimizers -> optimizer, optimizes, optimize rs dragonegg.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US optimizers -> optimizer, optimizes, optimize rs dragonegg.spec:12: W: macro-in-comment %{version} dragonegg.spec:12: W: macro-in-comment %{release} dragonegg.spec:19: W: macro-in-comment %{gcc_version} dragonegg.spec:20: W: macro-in-comment %{gcc_release} dragonegg.spec:22: W: macro-in-comment %{version} dragonegg.spec:22: W: macro-in-comment %{gcc_release} dragonegg.spec:76: W: macro-in-comment %{optflags} 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Those macros in comments need doubled % signs. [+] follows package naming guidelines [+] spec file base name matches package name [+] package meets the packaging 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 3704d215fb4343040eaff66a7a87c63a for both [+] package builds on at least one primary arch (tried x86_64) [N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch: Question: is llvm available on all arches? [+] all build requirements in BuildRequires [N] spec file handles locales properly [N] 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 [N] large documentation in -doc [+] no runtime dependencies in %doc [N] header files in -devel [N] static libraries in -static [N] .so in -devel: this .so is a plugin, and is in exactly the right place [N] -devel requires main package [+] package contains no libtool archives [N] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install [+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages [+] all filenames in UTF-8 SHOULD: [N] query upstream for license text [N] description and summary contains 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: could not test because I could not install; see above [+] sane scriptlets [N] subpackages require the main package [N] placement of pkgconfig files [+] file dependencies versus package dependencies [N] 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