https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829971 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=4242898 REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint emits only non-critical/easyfix/bogus warnings: work ~/Desktop: rpmlint lv2-samplv1-0.0.1-0.2.svn671.fc18.x86_64.rpm samplv1-* lv2-samplv1.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US synth -> synthesis lv2-samplv1.x86_64: W: no-documentation samplv1.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fx -> f, x, fix samplv1.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fx -> f, x, fix samplv1.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://www.rncbc.org/snapshots/samplv1-svn671.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found ^^^ please this this. Proper link is http://www.rncbc.org/snapshots/old/samplv1-svn671.tar.gz Note "old/" as a part of the link. Also new version is available: http://www.rncbc.org/snapshots/samplv1-0.0.8svn759.tar.gz samplv1.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fx -> f, x, fix samplv1.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fx -> f, x, fix samplv1.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary samplv1_jack 4 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 (GPLv2 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. Please take a look at my note regarding wrong link. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum samplv1-svn671.tar.gz* 6177006a34c7ef1ba456f71d95dd6f47c55f4a6b044b01845082e4915b9ee3be samplv1-svn671.tar.gz 6177006a34c7ef1ba456f71d95dd6f47c55f4a6b044b01845082e4915b9ee3be samplv1-svn671.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 in some of the dynamic linker's default paths. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. 0 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. 0 The package DOESN'T have a %clean section, so it won't build cleanly on systems with old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware. + 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 C/C++ header files. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so) in some of the dynamic linker's default paths. 0 No devel sub-package. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 The package doesn't include a %{name}.desktop file. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. 0 At the beginning of %install, the package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) so it won't build cleanly on systems with old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Please, fix Source0 link 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