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=770615 Adel Gadllah <adel.gadllah@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |adel.gadllah@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Adel Gadllah <adel.gadllah@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-01-31 11:21:52 EST --- Review: [1] rpmlint must be run on every package. baobab.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US analyse -> analyses, analyst, analyze baobab.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem -> file system, file-system, systemically baobab.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US analyse -> analyses, analyst, analyze baobab.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem -> file system, file-system, systemically baobab.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided gnome-utils baobab.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided gnome-utils-libs baobab.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided gnome-utils-devel baobab-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/baobab-3.3.1/src/baobab-remote-connect-dialog.c baobab-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/baobab-3.3.1/src/baobab-remote-connect-dialog.h 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings. [+] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [+] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. (GPLv2+ and GFDL) [+] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [2] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. [+] The spec file must be written in American English. [+] The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. sha265: df516886452984c609ecd149ea43cbbd77f100c4c5424762835600a2269075d7 [+] The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [+] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [+] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. [+] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [+] A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [+] Permissions on files must be set properly. [+] Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [+] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed / validated with desktop-file-install / desktop-file-validate in the %install section. [+] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [+] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [+] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. 1: Mostly just noise, should provide gnome-utils though for upgrades. 2: Should package COPYING (and probably NEWS and README) Otherwise looks fine. -- 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