https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196780 --- Comment #12 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Daniel Pocock from comment #11) > Is it really necessary to include changelog entries in packages that are not > yet approved? I thought it is only necessary to update the RPM spec file > changelog after a first version of the package is in Fedora? Some people do it. Some people list the notes in a comment. I guess it's not really important where, but for a fairly complicated package it is nice to have it. > Latest SRPM here: > > Spec URL: https://secure.trendhosting.net/fedora/xtuple-openrpt.spec > SRPM URL: > https://secure.trendhosting.net/fedora/xtuple-openrpt-3.3.8-1.fc21.src.rpm Thanks. /usr/share/openrpt/OpenRPT/images/icons_24x24/Thumbs.db ← I think this file got packaged by mistake. /usr/share/openrpt/OpenRPT/images/openrpt_qembed.h ← This looks like a strange place to put a header file. $ desktop-file-validate /usr/share/applications/importmqlgui.desktop /usr/share/applications/importmqlgui.desktop: warning: key "Encoding" in group "Desktop Entry" is deprecated $ /usr/share/applications/importrptgui.desktop /usr/share/applications/importrptgui.desktop: warning: key "Encoding" in group "Desktop Entry" is deprecated $ desktop-file-validate /usr/share/applications/openrpt.desktop /usr/share/applications/openrpt.desktop: warning: key "Encoding" in group "Desktop Entry" is deprecated Icons used in the desktop files are 32x32 pixels. They looks *bad* when gnome-shell scales them to display in the application list. Please use the 128x128 versions if possible. - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/openrpt/OpenRPT/images/icons_16x16 A few dirs in images/ are matched both with specific %dir and with a glob. - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /var/tmp/1196780-xtuple- openrpt/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL I just hope I'm reviewing the right version :) [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. xtuple-openrpt-images-3.3.8-1.fc22.noarch.rpm has no license, and no requirements on other packages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: xtuple-openrpt-3.3.8-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm xtuple-openrpt-images-3.3.8-1.fc23.noarch.rpm xtuple-openrpt-libs-3.3.8-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm xtuple-openrpt-devel-3.3.8-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm xtuple-openrpt-3.3.8-1.fc23.src.rpm xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C xTuple reporting utility and libraries Maybe change that to "Postbooks reporting utility and libraries". This will have the advantage that the package will show in searches for postbooks, which is probably quite useful. xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 3.3.7-1 ['3.3.8-1.fc23', '3.3.8-1'] Typo. xtuple-openrpt-images.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/openrpt/OpenRPT/images/openrpt_qembed.h xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/xtuple-openrpt/COPYING xtuple-openrpt.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C xTuple reporting utility and libraries xtuple-openrpt.src: W: file-size-mismatch v3.3.8.tar.gz = 5365760, https://github.com/xtuple/openrpt/archive/v3.3.8.tar.gz = 1205467 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 22 warnings. -- 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