https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985065 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #14 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- Koji scratchbuild for F-19 (just because it faster tenfold than F20/F21 with arm enabled) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6113561 REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is not silent, but the only message may be ignored now: Auriga ~/Desktop: rpmlint peg-solitaire-* peg-solitaire.src:26: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build qmake-qt4 PREFIX=%{buildroot}/%{_prefix} %{name}.pro ^^^ This should actually go into %install stage but I don't insist on fixing this right now. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Auriga ~/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 (GPLv3 or later). + 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 peg-solitaire-2.0.tar.gz* 71ac0a149a10c034051a7ac464fdff64205b45d770b29f76e9d251e6993cead3 peg-solitaire-2.0.tar.gz 71ac0a149a10c034051a7ac464fdff64205b45d770b29f76e9d251e6993cead3 peg-solitaire-2.0.tar.gz.1 sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + 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. + The spec file handles locales properly (by using the %find_lang macro). 0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths. + 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 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 C/C++ header files. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so) in some of the dynamic linker's default paths. 0 No devel sub-package. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. + The package includes a %{name}.desktop file, and this file is validated with desktop-file-validate in the %check section. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. I don't see any issues, so this package is 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