https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317182 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint isn't silent but all these messages may be safely omitted: Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../SRPMS/erlang-fast_xml-1.1.11-2.fc24.src.rpm ../RPMS/x86_64/erlang-fast_xml-* erlang-fast_xml.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xmerl -> Merle erlang-fast_xml.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xml -> XML, ml, x ml erlang-fast_xml.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xmerl -> Merle erlang-fast_xml.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xml -> XML, ml, x ml ^^^ false positive. erlang-fast_xml.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/erlang/lib/fast_xml-1.1.11/priv/lib/fxml.so erlang-fast_xml.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/erlang/lib/fast_xml-1.1.11/priv/lib/fxml_stream.so ^^^ these libraries will be dlopened so not having so-name is fine. erlang-fast_xml-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) xml -> XML, ml, x ml erlang-fast_xml-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xml -> XML, ml, x ml ^^^ false positive as well. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the (yet to be finalized) Erlang Packaging Guidelines. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (Apache 2.0). + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. + 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 1.1.11.tar.gz* 61bd5b9d6ff454865d864106ab02b769bb4313461dcd011a4c4803886d4814ba 1.1.11.tar.gz 61bd5b9d6ff454865d864106ab02b769bb4313461dcd011a4c4803886d4814ba 1.1.11.tar.gz.1 Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + 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 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. 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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx