https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827818 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=4132097 You didn't package seivots-to-csv - is it intentional? If no - consider packaging it - it looks useful. This is NOT a blocker since I don't know how a typical workflow involving seivot looks like so feel free to reject this proposal. REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is almost silent work ~/Desktop: rpmlint seivot-1.16-1.fc18.* seivot.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Benchmarking -> Bench marking, Bench-marking, Benchmark seivot.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US benchmarking -> bench marking, bench-marking, benchmark seivot.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rsync -> sync, r sync seivot.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rdiff -> riff, diff, r diff seivot.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Benchmarking -> Bench marking, Bench-marking, Benchmark seivot.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US benchmarking -> bench marking, bench-marking, benchmark seivot.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rsync -> sync, r sync seivot.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rdiff -> riff, diff, r diff 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. work ~/Desktop: + 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 files). + 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 seivot_1.16.orig.tar.gz* 689280ac368f292dbfb5c0ba93bd9388a489f404bd5b296a1d9db8f5e58e1441 seivot_1.16.orig.tar.gz 689280ac368f292dbfb5c0ba93bd9388a489f404bd5b296a1d9db8f5e58e1441 seivot_1.16.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. + 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 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 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. + 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