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: guidance-power-manager - KDE Power Manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448949 dev@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |dev@xxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From dev@xxxxxxxxxx 2008-05-31 23:31 EST ------- Y/N/- MUST: Y: rpmlint on each package --------------- guidance-power-manager.x86_64: W: no-documentation guidance-power-manager.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/kde4/apps/guidance-power-manager/powermanage.py 0644 guidance-power-manager.x86_64: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/bin/guidance-power-manager /usr/share/kde4/apps/guidance-power-manager/guidance-power-manager.py guidance-power-manager.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/xf86misc.py 0644 guidance-power-manager.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.0-0.1.20080529svn 0.1-0.1.20080529svn.fc9 guidance-power-manager-debuginfo.x86_64: W: filename-too-long-for-joliet guidance-power-manager-debuginfo-0.1-0.1.20080529svn.fc9.x86_64.rpm --------------- Y: Meets Package Naming Guidelines Y: Spec file name matches base package name Y: License field is valid Y: Meets Packaging Guidelines -: License included in package (if included in source) Y: Spec file written in en_US Y: Spec file is legible -: Sources match upstream source Y: Source URL 'sane' Y: Compiles successfully - [F9 - x86_64, Rawhide(koji) - *] -: ExcludeArch required? Y: All Build Dependencies Listed -: Handles locales sanely -: Library packages run ldconfig Y: Package is not relocatable Y: Package owns all directories created Y: No duplicate file listings Y: defattr set correctly Y: %clean is used Y: Macro use conisistant Y: Contains Code/Content that is allowed -: Large Documentation in -doc subpackage Y: %doc must not affect package runtime -: Header files in -devel -: Static libraries in -static -: pkgconfig files require pkgconfig -: Library files are located in correct package -: -devel requires base package w/ fully versioned dependency Y: Packages do not contain .la (libtool) archives -: GUI Apps have .desktop files Y: No duplicate directory ownerships Y: %install cleans buildroot Y: Filenames are valid UTF-8 SHOULD: -: Description/Summary sections contain translations Y: Builds in mock/koji Y: Builds on all architectures -: Scriptlets are sane -: Subpackages require base package -: pkgconfig.pc files in -devel -: File dependencies should only be in /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin /usr/sbin Looking at the rpmlint errors: README should at the very least be included in %doc, you should ask upstream to include a copy of GPLv2 as well. Version in ChangeLog should be 0.2-0.1.20080529svn debuginfo pkg name is very long, should be safe to ignore, I don't think many make CDs of debuginfo packages :) I'm stamping this with the big green APPROVED stamp on the basis that %doc gets sorted out. -- 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