https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433686 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 silent Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/scram-0.12.0-1.fc25.src.rpm ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/scram-* 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 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 or later). + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included 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, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum scram-0.12.0.tar.gz* ff7c38e0b40ada5472f9521817e2ff890ecc2803909e895772f92a4ea30d4c90 scram-0.12.0.tar.gz ff7c38e0b40ada5472f9521817e2ff890ecc2803909e895772f92a4ea30d4c90 scram-0.12.0.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 shouldn't list scram.1 as %docs and as man-page. Just modify %install section in the following way: install -p -D -m 644 doc/scram.1 -t %{buildroot}/%{_mandir}/man1/ rm -f doc/scram.1 install -p -D -m 644 scripts/scram.sh %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/bash-completion/completions/scram There are other ways to handle this properly. This is minor issue anyway, so I don't see this as a blocker. + 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. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx