Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=920831 Kalev Lember <kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Kalev Lember <kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx> --- Fedora review lightsoff-3.8.0-1.fc19.src.rpm 2013-04-13 + OK ! needs attention rpmlint output: $ rpmlint lightsoff \ lightsoff-debuginfo-3.8.0-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm \ lightsoff-3.8.0-1.fc19.src.rpm lightsoff.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Lightsoff lightsoff.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided gnome-games-lightsoff lightsoff.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/lightsoff-3.8.0/COPYING lightsoff.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lightsoff lightsoff.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Lightsoff 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. + Rpmlint warnings / errors are harmless and can be ignored + 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: 286ae447f38ed92d01b5ed448eaa90bf lightsoff-3.8.0.tar.xz 286ae447f38ed92d01b5ed448eaa90bf Download/lightsoff-3.8.0.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 Looks very nice! APPROVED I am also going to sponsor you to the packager group, so feel free to go ahead and request the git repo next. It can take up to an hour for the permissions to sync, after that you should be able to set the fedora-cvs flag in bugzilla. Let me know on IRC / e-mail if you have any issues or want to discuss something. -- 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=e1La2DtvjP&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review