https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304125 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is almost silent Auriga ~/tmp/pam_usb: rpmlint * pam_usb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pam -> map, Pam, pan pam_usb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US usb -> USB, sub, us pam_usb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US su -> sew, us, s ^^^ false positive pam_usb.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog ^^^ please, add version to your changelog entry pam_usb.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US usb -> USB, sub, us pam_usb.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US su -> sew, us, s ^^^ false positive pam_usb.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog ^^^ see above pam_usb.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/pamusb-check.1.gz 1: warning: macro `"' not defined pam_usb.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/pamusb-agent.1.gz 1: warning: macro `"' not defined pam_usb.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/pamusb-conf.1.gz 1: warning: macro `"' not defined ^^^ Not sure what's this, but it looks harmless. pam_usb-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pam -> map, Pam, pan pam_usb-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) usb -> USB, sub, us pam_usb-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pam -> map, Pam, pan pam_usb-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US usb -> USB, sub, us ^^^ False positive as well. pam_usb-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog ^^^ See above. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 15 warnings. Auriga ~/tmp/pam_usb: + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Well at least in the same unfortunate way other PAM-related packages were named. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. +/- The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. I've got only few minor suggestions. Consider removing no longer necessary %defattr explicit mentioning and cleaning up BUILDROOT in the %install section. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license (GPLv2) and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (strict GPLv2). - The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, MUST included in %doc. Please add the followint line to the main package's %files section: %license COPYING + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum b96b4f79f7a579b2445a149d3b382c16a6d04324.tar.gz* 30c60b75a8959af242da6f9486b5de7218b1cd725f21950aed6a3e469a81563a b96b4f79f7a579b2445a149d3b382c16a6d04324.tar.gz 30c60b75a8959af242da6f9486b5de7218b1cd725f21950aed6a3e469a81563a b96b4f79f7a579b2445a149d3b382c16a6d04324.tar.gz.1 Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See Koji link above. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. 0 The package is not designed to be relocatable. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. 0 No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. 0 No C/C++ header files. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so) in some of the dynamic linker's default paths. 0 No devel sub-package. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not a GUI application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. This package is APPROVED. Please don't forget to explicitly mention COPYING file as I proposed above. -- 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