https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1140324 Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> --- Looks fine. APPROVED A few minor bits you might consider: - document in the spec file the reason the audio/video is disabled in the spec for easy reference - Use the new %license directive + rpmlint output rpmlint pjproject-2.3-2.fc21.src.rpm pjproject-2.3-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm pjproject-devel-2.3-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm pjproject-debuginfo-2.3-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm pjproject.spec pjproject-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib pjproject-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 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 * Might be useful to use the new %license tag + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + upstream sources match sources in the srpm 8440e43242c439ae5ec30b5b85005fce pjproject-2.3.tar.bz2 + package successfully builds on at least one architecture tested using koji scratch build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7572191 + BuildRequires list all build dependencies n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* + binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun+ does not use Prefix: /usr + package owns all directories it creates + no duplicate files in %files + Package perserves timestamps on install + Permissions on files must be set properly + 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 + header files should be in -devel n/a static libraries should be in -static + libfoo.so must go in -devel + 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: n/a 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 + 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. 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