https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868325 --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- Few notes: * Please specify a svn revision explicitly (instead of exporting HEAD) * Relese should be from 1.20121019gitd8c1bf8%{?dist} Otherwise looks good. REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is silent sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/expatpp-* ../SRPMS/expatpp-0.6-20121019gitd8c1bf8.fc19.src.rpm expatpp.ppc: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US schemas -> schema, sachems, schemes ^^^ false positive expatpp-devel.ppc: W: no-documentation ^^^ sad but true. expatpp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US schemas -> schema, sachems, schemes ^^^ false positive expatpp.src:12: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 12, tab: line 2) ^^^ cosmetic. Please fix in the mean time. expatpp.src: W: file-size-mismatch expatpp.tar.bz2 = 10814, http://sourceforge.net/projects/expatpp/files/expatpp.tar.bz2 = 22116 ^^^ since we don't use the tarball from SF in favor of autogenerated one then just shorted Source1 to expatpp.tar.bz2 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 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 (Mozilla Public License 1.1, as stated at the SF's page). 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. + The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. + 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. + Header files are stored in a -devel package. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. + The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a -devel package. + The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} + 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. Ok, please address the issues noted above and I'll finish review. -- 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