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=635511 Tim Niemueller <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #43 from Tim Niemueller <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2012-04-03 11:53:09 EDT --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable - rpmlint is not silent and some messages may not be ignored assimp.src: W: invalid-url Source0: assimp-1071.tar.bz2 Is ok, source is created with script that comes with the package from svn and deleting dll files assimp.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary assimp 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (). + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. (+) The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Source is downloaded from svn and modified to not ship windows DLLs. I have done an own checkout and compared my version and the package version with diff. No changes have been shown. + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. + Spec file calls ldconfig + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + The package is not designed to be relocatable. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (+) The package consistently uses macros. You use macros most of the time, but $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. Please consider using %{buildroot} instead. + The package contains code, or permissible content. + No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + Header files in devel sub-package 0 No static libraries. + pkgconfig(.pc) files in devel package + Non-suffix so file is in devel sub-package + Devel sub-package properly depends on main package + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not a GUI application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Looks good. Please fix macro usage before importing. Please consider providing it for EPEL 6 if feasible (e.g requirements are met). 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