https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866154 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- Koji scratchbuild for Rawhide: * http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4633677 REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is not silent but all its messages are false positives: Auriga ~/Desktop: rpmlint rtaudio-* rtaudio.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US realtime -> mealtime, real time, real-time rtaudio.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti rtaudio.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> pi, ape, apt rtaudio.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d rtaudio.src: W: invalid-url Source0: rtaudio-4.0.11-fe.tar.gz rtaudio.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US realtime -> mealtime, real time, real-time rtaudio.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti rtaudio.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> pi, ape, apt rtaudio.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d rtaudio-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US realtime -> mealtime, real time, real-time rtaudio-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti rtaudio-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> pi, ape, apt rtaudio-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings. Auriga ~/Desktop: + 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 (MIT). 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. See koji link above. + 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. 0 The package DOESN'T have a %clean section, so it won't build cleanly on systems with old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware. + 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. 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. I don't see any other issues so this package is APPROVED. ps If you have a spare time then could you please review this in return? * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/869301 -- 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