https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827819 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- Koji scratchbuild for Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4132081 REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is almost silent work ~: rpmlint Desktop/summain-* summain.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal summain.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checksum -> check sum, check-sum, checks um summain.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal summain.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checksum -> check sum, check-sum, checks um 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. work ~: + 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 (GPLv3 or later, as stated in the source code). 0 No licensing info provided in the tarball. + 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 summain_0.13.orig.tar.gz* 1924a1862b9d76e71572398a60c1b30f898317fa176ac59305e41d1173883b89 summain_0.13.orig.tar.gz 1924a1862b9d76e71572398a60c1b30f898317fa176ac59305e41d1173883b89 summain_0.13.orig.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. 0 The package DOESN'T have a %clean section, so it won't build cleanly on systems with old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware. + 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 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. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. APPROVED. -- 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