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: tktray - System Tray Icon Support for Tk on X11 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446978 ------- Additional Comments From lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx 2008-05-24 15:51 EST ------- Sorry for the delay. REVIEW: - rpmlint is not silent. [petro@Sulaco SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/tktray-* tktray.ppc: E: description-line-too-long It follows http://www.freedesktop.org specifications when looking up the system tray manager. tktray.ppc: E: description-line-too-long This protocol is supported by modern versions of KDE and Gnome panels, and by some other panel-like application. [petro@Sulaco SPECS]$ Please, shorten these lines. + 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 meet the Licensing Guidelines. - The License field in the package spec file doesn't match the actual license. I think that actual license is BSD, although IANAL (see license.terms). - The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. Consider only to remove excessive newlines and spacing and add newline before %changelog section. + The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ md5sum tktray1.1.tar.gz* d033dd0cf47cb6205364868455e01394 tktray1.1.tar.gz d033dd0cf47cb6205364868455e01394 tktray1.1.tar.gz.1 [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture (powerpc). + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + 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 doesn't have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + The package consistently using macros. + The package contains code, or permissable content. + Package doesn't contain any .la libtool archives. + Package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Summarizing things: * Fix license field * Add license.terms to %docs * Consider removal of excessive whitespacing in spec file and adding newline before %changelog (just for better look)) * Add a %clean section -- 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