https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975315 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- Looks good to me. Here is my formal REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is not silent but all its messages are either false positives or informative only: work ~/Desktop: rpmlint libodb-mysql-* libodb-mysql.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment libodb-mysql.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment libodb-mysql.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment libodb-mysql.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment libodb-mysql.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. work ~/Desktop: + 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 (strict GPLv2). + 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 package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See Koji link above. + 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 does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + 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. Well, since we're moving to unversioned docdirs this will definitely cause issues. Please be careful with EL5 and EL6. + Header files are stored in a -devel package. 0 No static libraries. + The pkgconfig(.pc) files are stored in a -devel package. A necessary runtime requirement is picked up automatically in Fedora, but EL5 (and maybe even EL6) will require explicit "Requires: pkgconfig" + The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) 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. APPROVED. -- 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