https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120005 Kalev Lember <klember@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |klember@xxxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |klember@xxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Kalev Lember <klember@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Fedora review rust-unsafe-libyaml-0.2.2-1.fc36.src.rpm 2022-09-05 $ rpmlint rust-unsafe-libyaml-0.2.2-1.fc36.src.rpm \ rust-unsafe-libyaml+default-devel-0.2.2-1.fc38.noarch.rpm \ rust-unsafe-libyaml-devel-0.2.2-1.fc38.noarch.rpm =================================================================================== rpmlint session starts =================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 3 rust-unsafe-libyaml+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation ==================================================== 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ==================================================== + OK ! needs attention + rpmlint output looks good + The package is named according to Fedora packaging guidelines + The spec file name matches the base package name. + 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 spec file matches the actual license + The license text (MIT) is included in %license + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible + Upstream sources match the sources in the srpm SHA512 (unsafe-libyaml-0.2.2.crate) = 385fed83536204170f356d3c430e7b898cfd6bd302396a63da119c55c874a5b54d0e54da0d018d7d9dab8361f268d8f645ed87f3406bbc2a07aef3a3f95712c2 SHA512 (Download/unsafe-libyaml-0.2.2.crate) = 385fed83536204170f356d3c430e7b898cfd6bd302396a63da119c55c874a5b54d0e54da0d018d7d9dab8361f268d8f645ed87f3406bbc2a07aef3a3f95712c2 + Package builds in koji n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires look sane n/a locale handling + Package does not bundle copies of system libraries n/a Package isn't relocatable + Package owns all the directories it creates + No duplicate files in %files (license file is duplicate but that's fine as per packaging guidelines) + Permissions are properly set + Consistent use of macros + The package must contain code or permissible content n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + Files marked %doc should not affect the runtime of application n/a Static libraries should be in -static + Development files should be in -devel n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base + Packages should not contain libtool .la files n/a Proper .desktop file handling + Doesn't own files or directories already owned by other packages + Filenames are valid UTF-8 + Package does not depend on deprecated packages Everything looks nice and clean to me. APPROVED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120005 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
