https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839170 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable +/- rpmlint is not silent: sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/devtodo2-* ../SRPMS/devtodo2-2.1-1.20120711git8dee6.fc18.src.rpm devtodo2.ppc: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2-1.20120711git8dee6 ['2.1-1.20120711git8dee6.fc18', '2.1-1.20120711git8dee6'] ^^^ Please, fix %changelog entry according to the version/release. devtodo2-debuginfo.ppc: E: debuginfo-without-sources ^^^ In seems that debuginfo extractor can't pick up Go sources right now. I think we may ignore this warning for now. devtodo2.src: W: invalid-url Source1: goopt-20120711git8dd57.tar.gz devtodo2.src: W: invalid-url Source0: devtodo2-2.1-20120711git8dee6.tar.gz ^^^ Thats' ok - we should blame github for that. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: + 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 must match the actual license (ASL 2.0). 0 No licensing info provided in tarball. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + 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 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. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + 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 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 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 License field and change the only %changelog entry according to the %{version} and %{release}. I don't see any other issues so this package is APPROVED. p.s. I'm terribly sorry for delaying with this. -- 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