https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839405 Kalev Lember <kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Kalev Lember <kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx> --- Fedora review wmcore-0.0.2-1.fc17.src.rpm 2012-07-22 + OK ! needs attention rpmlint output: $ rpmlint wmcore \ wmcore-debuginfo \ wmcore-0.0.2-1.fc18.src.rpm wmcore.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Dockapp -> Dock app, Dock-app, Paddock wmcore.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dockapp -> dock app, dock-app, paddock wmcore.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Dockapp -> Dock app, Dock-app, Paddock wmcore.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dockapp -> dock app, dock-app, paddock wmcore.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wmcore wmcore-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/wmcore-0.0.2/misc.c wmcore-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/wmcore-0.0.2/list.h wmcore-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/wmcore-0.0.2/list.c 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 5 warnings. + Rpmlint warnings/errors are harmless and can be ignored + The package is named according to Fedora packaging guidelines + The spec file name matches the base package name. + 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 spec file matches the actual license + The package contains the license file (COPYING) + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible + Upstream sources match the sources in the srpm. md5sum: da16cea009f32a3152a81a3619ec90e1 wmcore-0.0.2.tar.gz da16cea009f32a3152a81a3619ec90e1 Download/wmcore-0.0.2.tar.gz + The package builds in koji n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires look sane n/a Proper locale handling n/a ldconfig in %post and %postun + Package does not bundle copies of system libraries n/a Package isn't relocatable + Package owns all the directories it creates + No duplicate files in %files + Permissions are properly set + Consistent use of macros + The package must contain code or permissible content n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + Files marked %doc should not affect package n/a Header files should be in -devel n/a Static libraries should be in -static n/a Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base + Packages should not contain libtool .la files n/a Proper .desktop file handling + Doesn't own files or directories already owned by other packages + Filenames are valid UTF-8 Looks good. 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