https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990691 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable - rpmlint is not completely silent erlang-sidejob.armv7hl: E: no-binary erlang-sidejob.armv7hl: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ^^^ erlang-specific false positives erlang-sidejob.armv7hl: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/erlang-sidejob/README.md ^^^ This is an upstream issue really, but there's no point in packaging an empty file. erlang-sidejob.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: basho-sidejob-0.2.0-0-ga954ada.tar.gz Please use https://github.com/basho/sidejob/archive/0.2.0.tar.gz as the Source. It can be downloaded directly. 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings. + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Package follows erlang package naming guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. This one is of course the hardest, but I couldn't find anything amiss. + 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 (Apache License v. 2). There's no separate license file, but headers in file specify this license. - The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. Please ask upstream to include license file. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. Spec file is actually very clear. - The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Please use https://github.com/basho/sidejob/archive/0.2.0.tar.gz as the Source. + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. Is the explicit version in 'erlang-erts >= R13B' necessary? Isn't R13B ancient? 0 No need to handle locales. 0 The package doesn't store shared library files. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. 0 The package is not designed to be relocatable. + The package MUST own all directories that it creates. + The package doesn't 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 static libraries. + 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. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Please fix the remaining issues with Source and %doc 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=MgikxSLt9t&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review