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=772993 Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |steve.traylen@xxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |steve.traylen@xxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> 2012-02-05 19:14:33 EST --- Package Review ============== APPROVED Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== Generic ==== [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. ASL 2.0, good clear licensing. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 EPEL 4 even is on the cards. [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files -f package.filelist section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [x]: MUST 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 is included in %doc. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint globus-gram-audit-3.1-2.fc17.noarch.rpm globus-gram-audit.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US globus-gram-audit.noarch: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/cron.hourly/globus-gram-audit 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint globus-gram-audit-3.1-2.fc17.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. This is new one on me and clearly contradicts that packages in /etc/ should be configuration files. Please do a tiny bit of research or ignore for now. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/steve/tmp/review/772993/globus_gram_audit-3.1.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : 4893df9928b92202c6688aae0b23ec5b MD5SUM upstream package : 4893df9928b92202c6688aae0b23ec5b Deserves a comment -- how much easier does that make it. :-) [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. Issues: None unless you want to investigate the executable cron job mentioned above. Generated by fedora-review 0.1.2 -- 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