https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834548 Paul Lange <palango@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |palango@xxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Paul Lange <palango@xxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [a] Rpmlint output: hyena.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found es - OK, no spanish translations on my side hyena.x86_64: E: no-binary - OK, mono caused hyena.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib - OK, mono caused hyena-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package - should be disabled hyena-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation - OK [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1]. [x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2]. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms. [x] Buildroot definition is not present [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines[3,4]. [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [-] All independent sub-packages have license of their own Semi-automatic - if a subpackage requires the base package, the %doc macro is not required. if not, output a warning suggesting checking if the subpackage has license [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [s] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [paul@laptop 834548]$ md5sum hyena-0.5.tar.gz.orig bc20d11a387e8b09db638922a3cd0eb8 hyena-0.5.tar.gz [paul@laptop 834548]$ md5sum hyena-0.5.tar.gz bc20d11a387e8b09db638922a3cd0eb8 hyena-0.5.tar.gz [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5]. Manual [x] Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other packages for directories it uses. Manual - insanely costly [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Automatic - checking SHA sum of every file for the same checksums [x] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with good reason [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore) [x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mixing) [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] Package uses %global not %define [x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. === Issues === 1. You shouldn't build a debug subpackage as it's empty. Add %global debug_package %{nil} to the spec file. === Final Notes === 1. not sure if we need translations as most users don't care about dependencies 2. I approve this under the condition that the small debug package issue is fixed. ================ *** 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