https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317183 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- REVIEW: [+] rpmlint is silent (or produces only messages which can be safely ignored: Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../SRPMS/erlang-stun-1.0.1-1.fc24.src.rpm ../RPMS/x86_64/erlang-stun-1.0.1-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm erlang-stun.x86_64: E: no-binary erlang-stun.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: These two messages are expected for arch0independent Erlang packages. [+] 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 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 and marked as %license. [+] The spec file is written in American English. [+] The spec file for the package is legible. [+] The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum 1.0.1.tar.gz* a48837cc0db5de108243466a5531c046ab86706b7779f9ebc0f381b06ebade58 1.0.1.tar.gz a48837cc0db5de108243466a5531c046ab86706b7779f9ebc0f381b06ebade58 1.0.1.tar.gz.1 Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: [+] The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms. [+] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. [+] The spec file handles locales properly (using the %find_lang macro). [0] No need to handle locales. [0] The package does not contain any shared library files. [+] Packages does not bundle copies of system libraries. [+] The package isn't 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 large documentation files. [+] Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. [0] No static libraries. [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