Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855529 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint isn't silent but his messages can be safely ignored in this case: work ~/Desktop: rpmlint py* pygrib.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US grib -> brig, grub, grin pygrib.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gridded -> griddle, ridged ^^^ false positives pygrib.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://pygrib.googlecode.com/files/pygrib-1.9.5.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found ^^^ some issue within rpmlint - I've just checked this link and it works just fine. pygrib.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Cython -> Python pygrib.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US grib -> brig, grub, grin pygrib.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gridded -> griddle, ridged ^^^ false positives pygrib.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary grib_list pygrib.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cnvgrib1to2 pygrib.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cnvgrib2to1 pygrib.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary grib_repack ^^^ just a sad truth - these binaries indeed doesn't have any man-pages python3-pygrib.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Cython -> Python python3-pygrib.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US grib -> brig, grub, grin python3-pygrib.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gridded -> griddle, ridged ^^^ false positives 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings. work ~/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). + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. + 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 pygrib-1.9.5.tar.gz* 42ac49e0ac7a185fdde9444038fe9df6a8ffe131a783d755e0e93b5ddc4e8bc7 pygrib-1.9.5.tar.gz 42ac49e0ac7a185fdde9444038fe9df6a8ffe131a783d755e0e93b5ddc4e8bc7 pygrib-1.9.5.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 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. 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). 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. 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). Beware. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. I don't see any issues so this package is APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=0lCjAgPWuZ&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review