https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204172 Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- rpmlint output ============== perl-Authen-SASL-SASLprep.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Stringprep -> String prep, String-prep, Stripping perl-Authen-SASL-SASLprep.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stringprep -> string prep, string-prep, stripping perl-Authen-SASL-SASLprep.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/perl-Authen-SASL-SASLprep/LICENSE perl-Authen-SASL-SASLprep.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Stringprep -> String prep, String-prep, Stripping perl-Authen-SASL-SASLprep.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stringprep -> string prep, string-prep, stripping 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. Spellings are technical terms and can be ignored. FSF address issue raised as https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=102903 checklist ========= - rpmlint OK - package and spec file naming OK - package meets guidelines - license is same as perl, OK for Fedora, matches upstream, license file packaged - spec file written in English and is legible - source matches upstream apart from timestamp - package builds OK in mock for Rawhide - buildreqs OK - no locale data, libraries, devel files etc. to consider - package is not intended to be relocatable - directory ownership and permissions OK, no duplicate files - macro usage is consistent - code, not content - no large docs to worry about - docs don't affect runtime - not a GUI app, no desktop file needed - filenames are all ASCII issues ====== I prefer to use a patch rather than running iconv in %prep to fix character encodings. The reason for this is that sometimes upstreams switch character encodings themselves, and you can end up running iconv to convert an already-UTF8 file to UTF8, which usually doesn't generate an error but mangles the content of the file, and this problem is not detected by rpmlint. Using a patch instead catches this as the patch wouldn't apply if upstream changed character encoding. This is not a blocker but it's something to watch out for if you don't want to change this. If you do decide to use a patch, you could get rid of the BR: glibc-common too. Consider using wget/spectool to retrieve sources to maintain timestamp. No blockers. 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