https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018090 Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> --- Mostly fine. The only blocker here is the lack of the included license file but that's an easy fix. + rpmlint output rpmlint python-argcomplete-0.6.3-1.fc20.noarch.rpm python-argcomplete-0.6.3-1.fc20.src.rpm python-argcomplete.spec python-argcomplete.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) argparse -> sparse, parsec, parse python-argcomplete.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US argparse -> sparse, parsec, parse python-argcomplete.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subparsers -> submerse python-argcomplete.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary activate-global-python-argcomplete python-argcomplete.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary python-argcomplete-check-easy-install-script python-argcomplete.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary register-python-argcomplete python-argcomplete.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) argparse -> sparse, parsec, parse python-argcomplete.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US argparse -> sparse, parsec, parse python-argcomplete.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subparsers -> submerse 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. + package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines + specfile name matches the package base name + package should satisfy packaging guidelines + license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora + license matches the actual package license + latest version packaged - %doc includes license file Needs to include the LICENSE.rst in %doc + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + upstream sources match sources in the srpm bb87bddc65f6df1622a3eac7d1b98c95 argcomplete-0.6.3.tar.gz + package successfully builds on at least one architecture + tested using koji scratch build + BuildRequires list all build dependencies n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun+ does not use Prefix: /usr + package owns all directories it creates n/a no duplicate files in %files + Package perserves timestamps on install + Permissions on files must be set properly + %defattr line + consistent use of macros + package must contain code or permissible content n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + files marked %doc should not affect package runtime n/a header files should be in -devel n/a static libraries should be in -static n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel n/a devel must require the fully versioned base + packages should not contain libtool .la files n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages + filenames must be valid UTF-8 Optional: + if there is no license file, packager should query upstream to include it n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available + reviewer should build the package in mock/koji + the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures n/a review should test the package functions as described + scriptlets should be sane n/a non -devel packages should require fully versioned base n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel + shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin n/a Package should have man files -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review