https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830664 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- Koji scratchbuild for Rawhide failed due to the missing "BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils"): * http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4242920 I added this line and it builds fine now: * http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4242930 So please add this BuildRequires. REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is silent work ~/Desktop: rpmlint Add64-* Add64.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary Add64 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. work ~/Desktop: + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Well, I *personally* don't like Capitalized Name, but it seems how upstream names it. + 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 (strict GPLv3 as stated in README where upstream refers to the GPLv3 file - http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html ). + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. + 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 Add64-1.2.2.tar.bz2* d3f8a691711a9a3d47b1baeef0dec413a0d94642bd89b3e9193c31121c5654e5 Add64-1.2.2.tar.bz2 d3f8a691711a9a3d47b1baeef0dec413a0d94642bd89b3e9193c31121c5654e5 Add64-1.2.2.tar.bz2.1 sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See koji link above. - Not all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. See my note above. 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. + The package includes a %{name}.desktop file, and this file is properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. + 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 add missing buildrequires which is easy to fix. 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