https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2324027 Kalev Lember <klember@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Kalev Lember <klember@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Fedora review rust-libhandy-sys-0.11.1-1.fc41.src.rpm 2024-10-07 $ rpmlint rust-libhandy-sys* ============================================= rpmlint session starts ============================================= rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 7 rust-libhandy-sys+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-libhandy-sys+v1_0-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-libhandy-sys+v1_2-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-libhandy-sys+v1_4-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-libhandy-sys+v1_6-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-libhandy-sys-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation ======= 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings, 32 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 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 is included in %license + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible + Upstream sources match the sources in the srpm SHA512 (libhandy-sys-0.11.1.crate) = e816298b040fceb8e269c3285d14f0968e4baa685279a5d58eff470033e51f6b893ac7ef39746940f76ba8aa971ccb098e0707a99ddaaf534c41cfc19107d1e2 SHA512 (Download/libhandy-sys-0.11.1.crate) = e816298b040fceb8e269c3285d14f0968e4baa685279a5d58eff470033e51f6b893ac7ef39746940f76ba8aa971ccb098e0707a99ddaaf534c41cfc19107d1e2 + 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 is listed twice but that's expected with the rust2rpm generator) + 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 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2324027 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202324027%23c4 -- _______________________________________________ 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
