https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841418 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is silent work ~/Desktop: rpmlint prey-0.5.3-2.fc18.noarch.rpm prey-0.5.3-2.fc18.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 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 (strict GPLv3). + 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. work ~/Desktop: sha256sum prey-0.5.3-linux.zip* fdeed1987d30b4ca585e19ac9884194bc8a108bd56112d2913206fc85be3bd9b prey-0.5.3-linux.zip fdeed1987d30b4ca585e19ac9884194bc8a108bd56112d2913206fc85be3bd9b prey-0.5.3-linux.zip.1 work ~/Desktop: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + 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. -/0 The package DOESN'T have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). That's a problem if you plan to build for EL5. + 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 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. -/0 At the beginning of %install, the package DOESN'T run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). That's a problem if you plan to build for EL5. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Please, consider adding %clean section and add rm -rf %{buildroot} if you plan to build for EL5. I don't see any other 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