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=784847 Golo Fuchert <packages@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Golo Fuchert <packages@xxxxxxxxxx> 2012-02-05 15:36:19 EST --- Hi Germán, first of all, the bugzilla ticket needs to have the same name as the package itself before the SCM request, so you have to rename it to APLpy as well. But now the review: rpmlint SRPMS/APLpy-0.9.6-2.fc16.src.rpm RPMS/noarch/APLpy-0.9.6-2.fc16.noarch.rpm SPECS/APLpy.spec APLpy.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US grayscale -> gray scale, gray-scale, graceless APLpy.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US colorscale -> color scale, color-scale, colorless APLpy.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable -> customization APLpy.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US colorbars -> color bars, color-bars, colors APLpy.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalebars -> scale bars, scale-bars, scalars APLpy.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-matplotlib APLpy.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US grayscale -> gray scale, gray-scale, graceless APLpy.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US colorscale -> color scale, color-scale, colorless APLpy.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable -> customization APLpy.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US colorbars -> color bars, color-bars, colors APLpy.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalebars -> scale bars, scale-bars, scalars APLpy.noarch: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/APLpy-0.9.6/INSTALL 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 11 warnings. All the warnings can be ignored, however the Packaging Guidelines recommend _not_ to contain INSTALL files. Concerning the error: This is a false positive. If you want to, you can report this as a bug (for rpmlint I guess). There is a filter for such packages. [+] = ok [o] = does not apply [-] = not ok MUST: [+] The package is named according to the guidelines [+] Spec file name matches base package name [+] The package follows the Packaging Guidelines [+] The license is an approved licence (MIT) [+] The License field matches the actual licence [+] License file from source file is included in %doc [+] The spec file is written in American English [+] The spec file is legible [+] Used sources match with upstream sources (md5) $ md5sum APLpy-0.9.6.tar.gz.* bfd8e61ea1139dcc3d8bdf94eee03df3 APLpy-0.9.6.tar.gz.packaged bfd8e61ea1139dcc3d8bdf94eee03df3 APLpy-0.9.6.tar.gz.upstream [+] Package build at least on one primary architecture (i686) [o] No architectures known, where the package doesn't build [+] All build dependencies are listed in the BuildRequires section [o] No locales for the package [o] Package stores no shared libraries [o] Package does not bundle copies of system libraries [o] Package is not relocatable [+] Package owns all directories it installs [+] No files are listed more then once in the %files section [+] File permissions are set properly (%defattr(...) is used) [+] Consistent use of macros [+] Package contains code and documentation only, no content [+] No large documentation files [+] %doc files do not affect runtime [o] No Header files included [o] No static libraries [o] No library files ending with .so included [o] No -devel subpackage [+] No libtool .la archives included [o] No GUI application, no need for a .desktop file [+] Package does not own files or directories that are owned by other packages [+] All filenames are valid UTF-8 SHOULD: [+] The package builds in mock python specific: [+] Python egg is being built from source [o] No compat package. ----- Comments: - You have to change the name of this ticket - I would recommend not to include INSTALL in the package - You may want to report a bug concerning the rpmlint error - The spec file contains some tags or commands which are no longer needed if you package for Fedora only. Those that I noticed where: BuildRoot %defattr(-,root,root,-) %clean Please consider removing them. If you intend to package for RHEL, some might still be needed, though. ---------------- Package APPROVED ---------------- -- 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