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=662269 --- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2012-05-08 15:26:21 EDT --- Indeed, I get those rpmlint complaints and they're all fine. (Though I wonder why all of the stuff in the srpm has such odd permissions. I guess it could be your umask.) The "texlive2010" bit is a little odd since that project is on to texlive2012 now. Hopefully one day soon that project will actually be finished. (Last I checked it was waiting on just two license issues.) Anyway, that's Since the package contains files of multiple licenses, you'll need at least a comment in the spec indicating which file is under which license. The examples package has a somewhat odd directory structure; the "examples" directory is repeated: /usr/share/dpic/examples/examples/README I also wonder if the documentation for the examples should be packaged as documentation, though that's starting to descend to absurdity. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: c79dc98fe3c46e2c79a260b54c5e429b2c587ed80edd20699990bbd462914b8a dpic-2012.04.23.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package (at least one license text is in the README file) * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: dpic-2012.04.23-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm dpic = 2012.04.23-1.fc18 dpic(x86-64) = 2012.04.23-1.fc18 = (none special) dpic-examples-2012.04.23-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm dpic-examples = 2012.04.23-1.fc18 dpic-examples(x86-64) = 2012.04.23-1.fc18 = dpic = 2012.04.23 * no bundled libraries. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. -- 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