https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201469 --- Comment #3 from Debarshi Ray <debarshir@xxxxxxxxxx> --- MUST items ---------- rpmlint output: $ rpmlint gegl03-0.3.0-0.1.git06aea8e.fc22.src.rpm gegl03.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US compositing -> composting, com positing, com-positing gegl03.src: W: invalid-url Source0: gegl-0.3.0-06aea8e.tar.bz2 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. $ rpmlint gegl03-0.3.0-0.1.git06aea8e.fc21.x86_64.rpm gegl03.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US compositing -> composting, com positing, com-positing gegl03.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. $ rpmlint gegl03-debuginfo-0.3.0-0.1.git06aea8e.fc21.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint gegl03-devel-0.3.0-0.1.git06aea8e.fc21.x86_64.rpm gegl03-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gegl03-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation gegl03-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/vala/vapi/gegl-0.3.deps 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. All those are harmless, except the one about the zero length VAPI file. Maybe we should build with --without-vala ? YES - package follows Naming Guidelines YES - spec file name matches base package %{name} YES - package follows Packaging Guidelines Some minor grammatical errors in %description. "GIMPs itches" should be "GIMP's itches", "minimal dependencies. and a" should be "minimal dependencies and a". There should be a Requires on ImageMagick. operations/common/magick-load.c has a fallback image loader which uses convert(1). We should probably fix these in gegl (the 0.2.x package) also. YES - package is under a Fedora approved license YES - license field matches actual license YES - source package includes license text, which is included in %license YES - spec file written in American English YES - spec file is legible YES - sources match upstream source Since this is a Git snapshot, the checksum of the tarball depends on the exact versions of Autotools. YES - package compiles on all primary architectures YES - there is no need for ExcludeArch YES - all build dependencies in BuildRequires YES - handles locales properly YES - calls ldconfig in %post and %postun YES - doesn't bundle system libraries YES - package is not relocatable YES - package owns all directories that it creates YES - files are listed only once in %files YES - file permissions are set properly YES - consistent use of macros YES - package contains code or permissible content YES - no need for doc subpackage YES - no chance of items marked as %doc affecting runtime YES - no static libraries YES - development files in devel subpackage YES - devel subpackage requires base package YES - package removes all libtool archives YES - package doesn't need a .desktop file YES - doesn't own files or directories owned by other packages YES - all filenames are valid UTF-8 SHOULD items ------------ YES - package includes license text from upstream NO - description and summary doesn't have translations YES - package builds in Koji YES - builds on all primary architectures YES - package functions as described YES - package doesn't use scriptlets YES - no subpackages other than devel YES - pkgconfig files are part of devel subpackage YES - no dependencies outside of /etc/, /bin/, /sbin, etc. YES - no need for man pages -- 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