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=810205 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-05-16 07:34:55 EDT --- Koji scratchbuild for F-18: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4081044 REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is almost silent work ~/work/siperl (git::master): rpmlint ~/Desktop/erlang-erlzmq2-* erlang-erlzmq2.src: W: invalid-url Source0: zeromq-erlzmq2-2.1.11-2-gd9e8614.tar.gz ^^^ we must blame github for that. erlang-erlzmq2.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency erlang-stdlib ^^ false positive (triggered by "stdlib" word) 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. work ~/work/siperl (git::master): + 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 Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (MIT and BSD). + 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. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum zeromq-erlzmq2-2.1.11-2-gd9e8614.tar.gz* 285259f6a82366e1a005f9a36b47fe2b53aab7860ab8bda6aa8fb9716617a875 zeromq-erlzmq2-2.1.11-2-gd9e8614.tar.gz 285259f6a82366e1a005f9a36b47fe2b53aab7860ab8bda6aa8fb9716617a875 zeromq-erlzmq2-2.1.11-2-gd9e8614.tar.gz.1 sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See koji link above. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. 0 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. + The package contains code, or permissible content. 0 No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. 0 No C/C++ header files. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so) in the default libdirs. 0 No devel sub-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. 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