https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319839 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is silent (all warnings listed below are just false positives): Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/noarch/rocket-depot-1.0.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm ../SRPMS/rocket-depot-1.0.0-1.fc24.src.rpm rocket-depot.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) xfreerdp -> freezer rocket-depot.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rocket-depot rocket-depot.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) rdesktop -> desktop, r desktop, leopardess rocket-depot.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) xfreerdp -> freezer rocket-depot.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rdesktop -> desktop, r desktop, leopardess 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 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 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 (GPLv3 exactly). + 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 1.0.0.tar.gz* 96899d2a2b8ecc7abd7bc2287aca9a16dedb32404dce2306018ca482d8a9736e 1.0.0.tar.gz 96899d2a2b8ecc7abd7bc2287aca9a16dedb32404dce2306018ca482d8a9736e 1.0.0.tar.gz.1 Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture (my own x86_64 PC). + 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. +/- The package includes a %{name}.desktop file, and this file must be validated with desktop-file-validate as stated here- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. So please validate *.desktop file. Since it's a minor issue I think we may consider this package as REVIEWED. -- 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