https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034341 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #23 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- Ok, here is my REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is almost silent sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/gstreamer1-python-* ../SRPMS/gstreamer1-python-1.1.90-1.fc21.src.rpm gstreamer1-python.ppc: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/gi/overrides/GstPbutils.py gstreamer1-python.ppc: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/gstreamer1-python/COPYING ^^^ These issues should be fixed upstream. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. I think we should stay with gstreamer1-* scheme rather than use python-* one. However I don't have any preferenceы here so feel free to choose whatever naming scheme you want (don't forget to add Provides: <> for the other one) . + 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 (LGPLv2 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 gst-python-1.1.90.tar.bz2* 542c9f9936c95cc419da7af9c004ad34066793baba67c052f0c08c42459f5eef gst-python-1.1.90.tar.bz2 542c9f9936c95cc419da7af9c004ad34066793baba67c052f0c08c42459f5eef gst-python-1.1.90.tar.bz2.1 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. 0 No need to handle locales. 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. 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. I don't see any other issues so this package is APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review