https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829116 --- Comment #4 from Matthew Woehlke <mw_triad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (MUST) rpmlint output is missing for latest packages. (In particular, the latest changelog entry is missing the git hash, which I assume is why rpmlint reports "incoherent-version-in-changelog 0-0.3.20120605git".) (MUST) python is not listed as a BuildRequires? (I would be willing to believe python is an exception, though unless I am blind, I don't see it in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2?) (MUST) /usr/share/zsh/site-functions/ is not owned by the package or any required packages (SHOULD) currently, no manpage is known to be available (upstream or otherwise) MUST items verified: - name is okay - .spec name is okay - package meets guidelines AFAICS (pity there is no bash-completion-filesystem) - code license is okay (ASL 2.0; did spot check of sources to verify) - .spec gives correct license - COPYING present in rpm - .spec is en_US and is legible - builds successfully on x86_64 - no locale-dependent data - no static or shared libraries (also covers -static, -devel) - does not bundle system libs - no files are listed more than once in %files - permissions look okay - macro use is consistent AFAICT - package content is permissible - doc is not large, and not required for execution - no .la's - not a GUI application - all file names are ASCII Was unable to verify source tarball checksum, probably due to how it was generated. Did clone upstream git repo and verified directory contents (diff -ru) are the same. (Curiously, the tarball I generated with 'git archive' is identical size, and 'tar tvf' listings are also identical. Also, consider giving either github URL or git archive command in .spec to make it easier for curious folk to regenerate the tarball.) I don't have ready access to verify if it FTB on any architectures, but have no reason to believe it wouldn't build. Ergo, no ExcludeArch expected. I am insufficiently familiar with relocatable packages; I don't believe it is or is intended to be? Owns /etc/bash_completion.d (along with at least a half dozen other packages). One could read this as a violation of a MUST, but as I understand the directory ownership issue in this case, it is okay. SHOULD items verified: - license comes from upstream - program appears to run correctly - bash completion works -- 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