https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=826483 Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(shakthimaan@gmail | |.com) --- Comment #4 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Several issues (see items marked [!] below), none very severe though. Could you update the package and also package the optional two other *.el files? They seem to be usable according to the Git log Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Rpmlint output: emacs-identica-mode-el.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US elisp -> lisp, e lisp, Ellis emacs-identica-mode-el.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Warnings are reasonable [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1]. [x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2]. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms. [x] Buildroot definition is not present [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines[3,4]. [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [-] All independent sub-packages have license of their own [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [!] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Fails: 8190b78f5d1f5e87b9a74044c663b37bdb739c4c39e4758c849c6eeb0faa29e6 identica-mode-1.2.1.tar.bz2 <-- tried downloading twice 9190c3daa1c0ac155f63d08248b07ff7b2c6def582c50831ec13bcac95948fd5 srpm-unpacked/identica-mode-1.2.1.tar.bz2 The files are actually identical but the ordering is different, somehow upstream must have changed the way the archives are regenerated. Odd but not that troublesome; just ignore this for now [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5]. Manual [x] Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [!] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with good reason [x] Permissions on files are set properly. Semi-automatic - done by rpmlint [!] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore) Semi-automatic - print warning for EPEL [x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mixing) [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] Package uses %global not %define [-] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...) [x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. Automatic - rpmlint [x] Latest version is packaged. Manual [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines [4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main [5] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 -- 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