https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827722 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- Koji scratchbuild for F-18: * http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4135361 REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is almost silent work ~: rpmlint Desktop/python-qrcode-2.4.1-2.fc18.* python-qrcode.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qrcode 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 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 (BSD as stated in the PKG-INFO file). + 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 qrcode-2.4.1.tar.gz* 3b7613c4bff6d4a381ab9641d384a9dd7dc48e133dc29b5f85c45e429f6713ef qrcode-2.4.1.tar.gz 3b7613c4bff6d4a381ab9641d384a9dd7dc48e133dc29b5f85c45e429f6713ef qrcode-2.4.1.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 should consistently use macros so please use %{buildroot} instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT although I personally don't consider this as a blocker. + 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. Please consider consistent macro usage within spec-file before importing. This package is 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