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=784952 nucleo <alekcejk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |alekcejk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from nucleo <alekcejk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2012-02-09 22:53:49 EST --- Hope this time not too short. MUST Items: + rpmlint output $ $ rpmlint ktp-filetransfer-handler-0.3.0-2.fc16.i686.rpm ktp-filetransfer-handler-0.3.0-2.fc16.src.rpm ktp-filetransfer-handler-debuginfo-0.3.0-2.fc16.i686.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. + named and versioned according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Package name match the upstream tarball name ktp-filetransfer-handler-0.3.0.tar.bz2 + spec file name ktp-filetransfer-handler.spec matches base package name + complies with all the legal guidelines: + License: GPLv2+ valid, matches actual license (main.cpp GPLv2+, some headers LGPLv2+) + No known patent problems + No emulator, no firmware, no binary-only or prebuilt components + COPYING (GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2) packaged as %doc + source matches upstream: MD5: 8e0f2929e7bdeb0c9c364007f20ddbd0 ktp-filetransfer-handler-0.3.0.tar.bz2 SHA1: dd409ecc375fa082165d8b9f539736894bd052da ktp-filetransfer-handler-0.3.0.tar.bz2 SHA256: 813d09ce5e5cd09e663d48e88fda974f4d222a3cf9862010788b639a294304d7 ktp-filetransfer-handler-0.3.0.tar.bz2 + builds on at least one arch build from mock is in F16 kde-unstable repo + no known non-working arches, so no ExcludeArch needed + no missing BuildRequires (builds in mock) + locales are handled properly by using %find_lang %{name} --all-name --with-kde macro + ldconfig call not needed (no shared libraries in dynamic linker's default paths) + no duplicated system libraries + package not relocatable (no Prefix tag) + directory ownership correct (doesn't own directories owned by another package, owns all package-specific directories) + no duplicate files in %files + permissions correct, %defattr(-,root,root,-) not needed now, executables have executable permissions + macros used where possible (%{name}, %{version}, %{buildroot}, %{cmake_kde4}, %{_target_platform}, %{cmake_kde4}, %{_kde4_libexecdir}, %{_datadir}) + no non-code content (only binary and texts files that binary needs) + no large documentation files, so no -doc package needed + no %doc files required at runtime + no header files which would need to be in a -devel subpackage + no static libraries, so no -static package needed + no devel symlinks which would need to be in a -devel subpackage + devel packages must require the base package (no -devel package) + no .la files + no .desktop file needed in /usr/share/applications for this KDE Telepathy internal module + desktop-file-validate call not needed + all filenames are valid UTF-8 + other packaging guidelines: + complies with the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (all files in %{_kde4_libexecdir} and %{_datadir}) - proper changelog, tags, BuildRequires, Summary, Description + no non-UTF-8 characters + all relevant documentation included as %doc (COPYING AUTHORS NEWS README TODO) + RPM_OPT_FLAGS are used in %{cmake_kde4} macro + debuginfo package is valid (contains stripped symbols from ELF binary and source code related to it) + no rpaths (no check-rpaths error) + no configuration files, so %config guideline doesn't apply + no init scripts, so init script guideline doesn't apply + timestamps are preserved + %{?_smp_mflags} used + not a web application, so web application guideline doesn't apply + no conflicts SHOULD Items: + license already included upstream + no translations for description and summary provided by upstream + package builds in mock (built for kde-unstable) - successfully tested the package functionality (no testing yet) + scriptlets are sane (no scriptlets needed) + subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency (no subpackages) + no .pc files, so "placement of .pc files" is irrelevant + no file dependencies + no binaries/scripts that needs man pages So please add some useful description from README. -- 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