https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1238755 Kalev Lember <kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Kalev Lember <kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx> --- Fedora review gstreamer1-rtsp-server-1.4.0-4.fc22.src.rpm 2015-07-27 $ rpmlint gstreamer1-rtsp-server-1.4.0-4.fc22.src.rpm \ gstreamer1-rtsp-server \ gstreamer1-rtsp-server-debuginfo \ gstreamer1-rtsp-server-devel gstreamer1-rtsp-server-devel-docs gstreamer1-rtsp-server.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) GStreamer -> G Streamer, Streamer, Steamer gstreamer1-rtsp-server.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) GStreamer -> G Streamer, Streamer, Steamer gstreamer1-rtsp-server.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgstrtspserver-1.0.so.0.400.0 /lib64/libgstbase-1.0.so.0 gstreamer1-rtsp-server.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgstrtspserver-1.0.so.0.400.0 /lib64/libgstrtp-1.0.so.0 gstreamer1-rtsp-server.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgstrtspserver-1.0.so.0.400.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0 gstreamer1-rtsp-server-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gstreamer1-rtsp-server-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. + OK ! needs attention + rpmlint warnings are harmless and can be ignored + The package is named according to Fedora 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 license text (COPYING.LIB) is included in %license + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible + Upstream sources match the sources in the srpm 974af05dbf867cade89b8d3101e3f197 gst-rtsp-server-1.4.0.tar.xz 974af05dbf867cade89b8d3101e3f197 Download/gst-rtsp-server-1.4.0.tar.xz + The package builds in koji n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires look sane n/a locale handling + 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 + 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 + Development files should be in -devel + -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. 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