Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947036 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is silent except quite typical bogus grammar-related messages and another one message regarding missing docs. work ~/Desktop: rpmlint wmvolman-* wmvolman.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unmounting -> mounting, miscounting, unstinting wmvolman.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hotpluggable -> hospitable wmvolman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unmounting -> mounting, miscounting, unstinting wmvolman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hotpluggable -> hospitable wmvolman.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wmvolman 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 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 (GPLv2 or later, as stated in the sources). + 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 wmvolman-2.0.1.tar.gz* 625c2911fd296dd4ce021f7902e64162544d75bd948145fc015cca8546b728ad wmvolman-2.0.1.tar.gz 625c2911fd296dd4ce021f7902e64162544d75bd948145fc015cca8546b728ad wmvolman-2.0.1.tar.gz.1 sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + 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. 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. + 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 No need to provide a %{name}.desktop file since it's not a GUI application which is intended to be started by a user. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. 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=uAquHVUPSC&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review