https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1715893 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- [+/-] rpmlint spotted one small typo. Apart from it everything looks fine: Auriga ~: rpmlint python3-gphoto2-2.0.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm python-gphoto2-2.0.0-1.fc31.src.rpm python3-gphoto2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US un -> UN, nu, in python-gphoto2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ives -> vies, vise, Ives ^^^ Please fix that typo. python-gphoto2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US un -> UN, nu, in 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Auriga ~: [+] 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 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 ~: sha512sum gphoto2-2.0.0.tar.gz* f3412c6a994a5242187321ae9f37c481e1248c97c8528c7542f29549cfc691daec84fd03139bea48e7b090e149bff091d5b2900f3eb22f888fe9e7f8bb599e34 gphoto2-2.0.0.tar.gz f3412c6a994a5242187321ae9f37c481e1248c97c8528c7542f29549cfc691daec84fd03139bea48e7b090e149bff091d5b2900f3eb22f888fe9e7f8bb599e34 gphoto2-2.0.0.tar.gz.1 Auriga ~: [+] The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms. [+] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. [0] No need to handle locales. [0] The package does not contain any shared library files in a common places where shared libs are stored usually. [+] 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 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
