https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857309 --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is silent (except bogus complains regarding spelling): sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/noarch/hash-slinger-2.0-1.fc19.noarch.rpm ../SRPMS/hash-slinger-2.0-1.fc19.src.rpm hash-slinger.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US keyscan -> key scan, key-scan, keys can hash-slinger.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sshfp -> ssh hash-slinger.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US keyscan -> key scan, key-scan, keys can hash-slinger.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tlsa -> Elsa, LSAT 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 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 matches the actual license (GPLv2+ as stated in the sources). - The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is NOT included in %doc. Well some licensing info does included but it contains the text og LGPLv2+ license while sources are licensed under GPLv2. Since you're the upstream developer then please fix this. + 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. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum hash-slinger-2.0.tar.gz* e1d803ad7ec1c9a449defddaf4936c682451047137607c572a9ca7ecdc1c55bd hash-slinger-2.0.tar.gz e1d803ad7ec1c9a449defddaf4936c682451047137607c572a9ca7ecdc1c55bd hash-slinger-2.0.tar.gz.1 sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + 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. + 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 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. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. * Please fix licensing issue (either drop COPYING from the final rpm or include proper license text instead) * (NOT A BLOCKER) you may drop %defattr directive - it's no longer needed ( >= RHEL5 or FC6). -- 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