https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1626134 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is almost silent: lemenkov ~/Downloads: rpmlint fips-* fips.x86_64: W: invalid-url BugURL: https://bugz.fedoraproject.org/fips <urlopen error _ssl.c:1029: The handshake operation timed out> ^^^ Not yet available but will be when we add this package. fips.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fips ^^^ Sad but true. fips-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url BugURL: https://bugz.fedoraproject.org/fips <urlopen error _ssl.c:1029: The handshake operation timed out> ^^^ See above. 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. lemenkov ~/Downloads: + 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. All Robert-André's notes above were addressed. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. - I believe that the correct lincense field value is LGPLv3+ rather than LGPLv3. + 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 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 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 is properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. APPROVED. Please fix License field before uploading. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
