Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=920861 Kalev Lember <kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Kalev Lember <kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx> --- Fedora review gnome-tetravex-3.8.0-1.fc19.src.rpm 2013-04-13 + OK ! needs attention rpmlint output: $ rpmlint gnome-tetravex \ gnome-tetravex-debuginfo-3.8.0-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm \ gnome-tetravex-3.8.0-1.fc19.src.rpm gnome-tetravex.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided gnome-games-gnotravex gnome-tetravex.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/gnome-tetravex-3.8.0/COPYING 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 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 As with lightsoff, the package doesn't have proper license headers in the source code, but we have the information in About->License to go with. + 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: dcf2828c746f451396f7a8d60939198a gnome-tetravex-3.8.0.tar.xz dcf2828c746f451396f7a8d60939198a Download/gnome-tetravex-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 good! 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=5xO0jvq5R1&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review