[Bug 839170] Review Request: devtodo2 - Manage a prioritized list of to do items organized by directory

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]