Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910890 Kalev Lember <kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Kalev Lember <kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx> --- Fedora review gnome-sudoku-3.7.4-2.fc19.src.rpm 2013-03-23 + OK ! needs attention rpmlint output: $ rpmlint gnome-sudoku \ gnome-sudoku-3.7.4-2.fc19.src.rpm gnome-sudoku.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 3.7.4-2 ['1:3.7.4-2.fc19', '1:3.7.4-2'] gnome-sudoku.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/gnome-sudoku-3.7.4/COPYING 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. The incoherent-version-in-changelog warning seems to be because of the epoch: apparently rpmlint wants us to use epoch in the %changelog as well. Looks like an easyfix. + The package is named according to Fedora packaging guidelines + The spec file name matches the base package name. + 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 spec file matches the actual license + The package contains the license file (COPYING) + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible + Upstream sources match sources in the srpm. md5sum: fca806fdf26195aa487cfa1c356bfe43 gnome-sudoku-3.7.4.tar.xz fca806fdf26195aa487cfa1c356bfe43 Download/gnome-sudoku-3.7.4.tar.xz + The package builds in koji n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires look sane + The spec file handles locales properly n/a ldconfig in %post and %postun + Package does not bundle copies of system libraries n/a Package isn't relocatable + Package owns all the directories it creates + No duplicate files in %files + Permissions are properly set + Consistent use of macros + The package must contain code or permissible content n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + Files marked %doc should not affect package n/a Header files should be in -devel n/a Static libraries should be in -static n/a Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base + Packages should not contain libtool .la files + Proper .desktop file handling + Doesn't own files or directories already owned by other packages + Filenames are valid UTF-8 Issues ------ Some nitpicks below, most of them are really minor. 1. The rpmlint warning outlined above 2. > Provides: gnome-games-sudoku = 1:3.6.1-5 The provide isn't really necessary here, I believe. Nothing in the repo Requires gnome-games-sudoku. 3. > %description > GNOME version of the popular Sudoku Japanese logic game Add a full stop at the end of the sentence, please. 4. Might be nice to sort the BRs and the %files list. 5. > %find_lang %{name} --all-name --with-gnome The --all-name option to the %find_lang macro is unnecessary here; all the docs / translations are installed under the 'gnome-sudoku' name. 6. > %{_mandir}/man6/gnome-sudoku.6.gz The man page compression is done by rpm and might change in the future, would be safer to use a glob here: %{_mandir}/man6/gnome-sudoku.6* APPROVED. Feel free to change the issues mentioned above before importing, if you think they make sense; none of them are review blockers. -- 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=Z5UnbQIZEe&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review