https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205459 Kalev Lember <kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Kalev Lember <kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx> --- Fedora review mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets-5.4.1-1.fc23.src.rpm 2015-03-25 $ rpmlint mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets-5.4.1-1.fc22.src.rpm \ mingw32-qt5-qtwebsockets-5.4.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm \ mingw64-qt5-qtwebsockets-5.4.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm \ mingw32-qt5-qtwebsockets-debuginfo-5.4.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm \ mingw64-qt5-qtwebsockets-debuginfo-5.4.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets.src:29: W: macro-in-comment %{qt_module} mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets.src:29: W: macro-in-comment %{snapshot_rev} mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets.src:29: W: macro-in-comment %{qt_module} mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets.src:29: W: macro-in-comment %{snapshot_rev} mingw32-qt5-qtwebsockets-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources mingw64-qt5-qtwebsockets-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings. + OK ! needs attention + rpmlint warnings are harmless and can be ignored + The package is named according to Fedora MinGW packaging guidelines + The spec file name matches the base package name. + 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 spec file matches the actual license + The stated license for the mingw package is the same as the one for the corresponding native Fedora package ! The license text is included in %license Can you use %license instead of %doc for the license files, please? + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible + Upstream sources match the sources in the srpm 308e1e9126e6fab8b06616db9810973e qtwebsockets-opensource-src-5.4.1.tar.xz 308e1e9126e6fab8b06616db9810973e Download/qtwebsockets-opensource-src-5.4.1.tar.xz + The package builds in koji n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires look sane n/a locale handling n/a ldconfig in %post and %postun + Package does not bundle copies of system libraries n/a Package isn't relocatable + Package owns all the directories it creates + No duplicate files in %files + Permissions are properly set + Consistent use of macros + The package must contain code or permissible content n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + Files marked %doc should not affect the runtime of application n/a Static libraries should be in -static n/a Development files should be in -devel Not applicable to MinGW packages. n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base + Packages should not contain libtool .la files n/a Proper .desktop file handling + Doesn't own files or directories already owned by other packages + Filenames are valid UTF-8 Looks good to me, just a minor problem with the %license vs %doc macros -- the guidelines were recently updated to require the %license macro for license files. Please fix this before importing. 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