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=744334 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-03-07 09:47:58 EST --- Good: - rpmlint checks return: etcdf-fortran.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 4.2 ['4.2-1.fc16', '4.2-1'] The latest entry in %changelog contains a version identifier that is not coherent with the epoch:version-release tuple of the package. netcdf-fortran-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libs -> lobs, lib, lbs The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. netcdf-fortran-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nf-config Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. netcdf-fortran-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Minor bits. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license ( NetCDF ) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - devel package ok - no .la files - post/postun ldconfig ok - devel requires base package n-v-r What about shipping examples/ in %doc? Otherwise, good. -- 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