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: nautilus-sound-converter - nautilus extension to convert audio files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448250 ------- Additional Comments From debarshi.ray@xxxxxxxxx 2008-05-31 15:51 EST ------- MUST Items: xx - rpmlint is unclean on SRPM + [rishi@ginger SRPMS]$ rpmlint nautilus-sound-converter-0.5.0-1.fc9.src.rpm nautilus-sound-converter.src:24: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes nautilus-flac-converter nautilus-sound-converter.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 13) [rishi@ginger SRPMS]$ xx - does not follow Naming Guidelines + According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Renaming.2Freplacing_existing_packages there should be a versioned Obsoletes, which would also take care of one of the rpmlint warnings. OK - spec file is named as %{name}.spec OK - package meets Packaging Guidelines + To preserve timestamps you could consider using: make install INSTALL="%{__install} -p" DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT + Why not include the AUTHORS, ChangeLog and TODO in %doc? OK - license meets Licensing Guidelines OK - License field meets actual license OK - upstream license file included in %doc OK - spec file uses American English OK - spec file is legible OK - sources match upstream sources OK - package builds successfully OK - ExcludeArch not needed OK - build dependencies correctly listed OK - no locales OK - no shared libraries in any of the dynamic linker's default paths OK - package is not relocatable OK - file and directory ownership OK - no duplicates in %file OK - file permissions set properly OK - %clean present OK - macros used consistently OK - contains code and permissable content OK - -doc is not needed OK - contents of %doc does not affect the runtime OK - no header files OK - no static libraries OK - no pkgconfig files OK - no library files with sonames OK - -devel is not needed OK - libtool archives removed in the spec OK - %{name}.desktop file not needed OK - does not own files or directories owned by other packages OK - buildroot correctly prepped OK - all file names valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items: OK - upstream provides license text xx - no translations for description and summary OK - package builds in mock successfully OK - package builds on all supported architectures OK - package functions as expected OK - scriptlets are not needed OK - subpackages are not needed OK - no pkgconfig files OK - no file dependencies -- 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