https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975309 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- Ok, this looks good to me. However I found another one issue - you listed header files twice in the %files section of a *-devel subpackage. Please replace %{_includedir}/cutl/ %{_includedir}/cutl/* with %{_includedir}/cutl/ Apart fro that everything is ok. so here is my formal REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is silent sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/libcutl-* ../SRPMS/libcutl-1.7.1-1.fc20.src.rpm 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: + 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 libcutl-1.7.1.tar.bz2* 2b712ff82c8be878bbb77bde767b6775dfbbf4b141ac63de4a2a2437a5cc18af libcutl-1.7.1.tar.bz2 2b712ff82c8be878bbb77bde767b6775dfbbf4b141ac63de4a2a2437a5cc18af libcutl-1.7.1.tar.bz2.1 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. + The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. + 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 must NOT list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. See my comment above. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + 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. + Header files are stored in a -devel package. 0 No static libraries. + The pkgconfig(.pc) files are stored in a -devel package (necessary runtime requirement picked up automatically). + The devel library file(s) is(are) stored in a -devel package. + The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} + 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. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Please fix the only remaining issue before uploading to Fedora Git. 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=UIVfLNLpVu&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review