Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lwp - LWP thread library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446650 lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx 2008-05-16 05:46 EST ------- REVIEW: + rpmlint is not silent but produces only one warning (may be safely omitted): [petro@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/i386/lwp-* lwp-devel.i386: W: no-documentation [petro@localhost SPECS]$ + 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 licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec matches the actual license. + File, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. + 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. [petro@localhost SOURCES]$ md5sum lwp-2.4.tar.gz* 5bd3221562de580d51f18c547f7606e3 lwp-2.4.tar.gz 5bd3221562de580d51f18c547f7606e3 lwp-2.4.tar.gz.1 [petro@localhost SOURCES]$ + The package successfully compiled and built into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture (i386). + No build dependencies. + The package calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. + A package owns all directories that it creates. + A package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. + The package contains code, or permissable content. + Everything a package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + Header files are in a -devel package. + Package is 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). + The library files that end in .so (without suffix) are in a -devel package. + The devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} + Package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. + Not a GUI app. + Package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. To review this package was easy and now it's APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review