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=773470 Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2012-02-04 10:44:19 EST --- APPROVED. Changes look good. * TODO Review [100%] - [X] Names [2/2] - [X] Package name - [X] Spec name - [X] Package version [2/2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Package_Versioning - [X] Version number http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Version_Tag matches version in source code - [X] Release tag http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Release_Tag http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages - [X] Meets [[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines][guidelines]] - [X] Source files match upstream ✗ sha1sum muffin-1.0.0.tar.gz ../SOURCES/muffin-1.0.0.tar.gz e5095a17c3ced6ae08133930a77e0490d0d6e756 muffin-1.0.0.tar.gz e5095a17c3ced6ae08133930a77e0490d0d6e756 ../SOURCES/muffin-1.0.0.tar.gz - [X] [[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries][No bundled libraries]] I don't see any - [X] License [4/4] - [X] License is Fedora-approved - [X] No licensing conflict - [X] License field accurate - [X] License included iff packaged by upstream - [X] rpmlint [2/2] - [X] on src.rpm (filtering out bogus spelling errors) muffin.src: W: invalid-url Source0: muffin-1.0.0.tar.gz download URL does not have the name of the created file; just ignore the warning - [X] on x86_64.rpm (filtering out issues that are identical to SRPM) -debuginfo and -devel have many incorrect-fsf-address errors; this is harmless These are the real warnings; muffin.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libmuffin.so.0.0.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 muffin.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/muffin.schemas muffin.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%pre rm muffin.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm The first two are also present in mutter; I'd ignore the first, and the second is a bit misleading as schemas are not really configuration files. The latter two are from the %gconf macros, so those are fine. - [X] Language & locale [3/3] - [X] Spec in US English - [X] Spec legible - [X] Use %find_lang to handle locale files - [X] Build [3/3] - [X] Koji results http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3762346 - [X] BRs complete - [X] Directory ownership - [X] Spec inspection [8/8] - [X] ldconfig for libraries - [X] No duplicate files - [X] File permissions - [X] Filenames must be UTF-8 - [X] no BuildRoot ([[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag][except if targeting RHEL5]]) - [X] Macro usage consistent - [X] Documentation [1/1] - [X] %doc files are non-essential - [X] Development [4/4] - [X] Headers in -devel - [X] If versioned .so's, unversioned in -devel - [X] -devel, -static requires main - [X] No .la - [X] Desktop file validation - [X] [[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets][Scriptlets]] [1/1] - [X] GConf http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ScriptletSnippets#GConf -- 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