https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830709 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- Koji scratchbuild for Rawhide: * http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4176543 REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is almost silent work ~/Desktop: rpmlint robert-hooke-1.2.0-2.fc18.* robert-hooke.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US composable -> compo sable, compo-sable, compos able robert-hooke.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US composable -> compo sable, compo-sable, compos able robert-hooke.src: W: invalid-url Source0: technomancy-robert-hooke-1.1.2-18-g30d2f8f.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 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 ( http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java ). + 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 (Eclipse Public License v.1.0 as stated in the sources). 0 The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, does not included in %doc since upstream doesn't provide one. + 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 technomancy-robert-hooke-1.1.2-18-g30d2f8f.tar.gz* e6aa340d2a984122bc5cb6997af9cf0969381b429a313ec3ffb7b0c7c447280c technomancy-robert-hooke-1.1.2-18-g30d2f8f.tar.gz e6aa340d2a984122bc5cb6997af9cf0969381b429a313ec3ffb7b0c7c447280c technomancy-robert-hooke-1.1.2-18-g30d2f8f.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. 0 No Javadoc stuff. + 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. I don't see any issues so 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