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=785767 --- Comment #4 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> 2012-01-30 10:38:31 EST --- + rpmlint output rpmlint output: perl-Gnome2-Vte.src:24: W: comparison-operator-in-deptoken font(:lang=en) Apparently this syntax is correct, according to the packaging guidelines. I've not seen it before. perl-Gnome2-Vte.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Gnome2/Vte/Install/vte2perl-version.h perl-Gnome2-Vte.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Gnome2/Vte/Install/vte2perl.h perl-Gnome2-Vte.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/perl-Gnome2-Vte-0.09/LICENSE perl-Gnome2-Vte.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Gnome2/Vte/Install/vte2perl-autogen.h These ones have been addressed in comment 1. + package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines + specfile name matches the package base name + package should satisfy packaging guidelines + license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora + license matches the actual package license The license file included in the package is the LGPLv2+, which is what the spec says. The source files don't reference any license at all. + %doc includes license file + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + upstream sources match sources in the srpm + package successfully builds on at least one architecture + BuildRequires list all build dependencies Yes, built in Koji. n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun + does not use Prefix: /usr + package owns all directories it creates + no duplicate files in %files + consistent use of macros + package must contain code or permissible content n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + files marked %doc should not affect package n/a header files should be in -devel This is OK, see comment 1. n/a static libraries should be in -static n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file n/a packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages + filenames must be valid UTF-8 + use %global instead of %define Optional: + if there is no license file, packager should query upstream n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available + reviewer should build the package in mock + the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures + review should test the package functions as described I have tested this with Tech Talk PSE. n/a scriptlets should be sane n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel + shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin =========================================== This package is APPROVED by rjones. =========================================== -- 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