https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825418 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is almost silent sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/noarch/elixir-0.5.0-1.20120526git6052352.fc18.noarch.rpm ../SRPMS/elixir-0.5.0-1.20120526git6052352.fc18.src.rpm elixir.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iex elixir.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary elixirc elixir.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary elixir elixir.src: W: invalid-url Source0: elixir-lang-elixir-v0.5.0-0-g6052352.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: + 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 (Apache Software License 2.0 and Erlang Public 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. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: sha256sum ../SOURCES/elixir-lang-elixir-v0.5.0-0-g6052352.tar.gz ~/Desktop/elixir-lang-elixir-v0.5.0-0-g6052352.tar.gz adcb2be56d4abe5c43244318d23696b14a1158a89a2260a8317a4689c5949c59 ../SOURCES/elixir-lang-elixir-v0.5.0-0-g6052352.tar.gz adcb2be56d4abe5c43244318d23696b14a1158a89a2260a8317a4689c5949c59 /home/petro/Desktop/elixir-lang-elixir-v0.5.0-0-g6052352.tar.gz sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: + 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. 0 No shared library files. + 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. + 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 with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1). 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. I don't see any other issues so this package is APPROVED. please add me (FAS name 'peter') to the InitialCC list. I'd like to stay informed about changes in the Erlang-related packages. -- 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