https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1560823 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- [+] rpmlint is almost silent: Auriga ~: rpmlint erlang-eimp-1.0.2-1.fc29.* erlang-eimp.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/erlang/lib/eimp-1.0.2/priv/bin/eimp 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Auriga ~: Please, remove "%global debug_package %{nil}" line. This package must pass through debuginfo-stripping procedure. [+] 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 (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: sha512sum eimp-1.0.2.tar.gz* 4599497e589f1856c7415cf070bb6a821cac1fa034046bbbbdf25ce51512726131d0fbc553d921d8206e8230afa7a5d483fa2bc5e7caa3b2d360f3d943253a99 eimp-1.0.2.tar.gz 4599497e589f1856c7415cf070bb6a821cac1fa034046bbbbdf25ce51512726131d0fbc553d921d8206e8230afa7a5d483fa2bc5e7caa3b2d360f3d943253a99 eimp-1.0.2.tar.gz.1 Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: [+] The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms. See Koji link above. [+] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. [+] The spec file handles locales properly (using the %find_lang macro). [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. Please address the debuginfo issue mentioned above. Apart from that I don't see any issues, so 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
