https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078489 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is silent sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/noarch/python-nbxmpp-* ../SRPMS/python-nbxmpp-0.4-1.fc21.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: + 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 (some GPLv3 - some source files are licensed under GPLv2+, while others are licensed under GPLv3 so the resulting license is GPLv3). + 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 nbxmpp-0.4.tar.gz* d02b5e77302ca90f1e2db69f911785b8239ae30b0049fe6626d5ebb7cd87781c nbxmpp-0.4.tar.gz d02b5e77302ca90f1e2db69f911785b8239ae30b0049fe6626d5ebb7cd87781c nbxmpp-0.4.tar.gz.1 sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture (I checked on my ppc, which is even more cool). + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + 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. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. 0 No header files. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1). 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. 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