Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451772 --- Comment #6 from Tim Lauridsen <tim.lauridsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-03 00:47:43 EDT --- rpmlint ume-launcher-0.6.3-1.fc9.i386.rpm ume-launcher.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/xdg/autostart/ume-launcher.desktop 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint ume-launcher-0.6.3-1.fc9.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. The warning is ok and can be ignored. (. not checked, * = ok, X = not OK) * Package is matching naming guidelines. * spec file in named %{name}.spec * it is legal for Fedora to distribute this * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible have the right good license shortname : LGPLv2+ * License file must be in %doc (it it exists) * Spec file is written in American English * Spec file is legible. X Sources match upstream. MD5SUM: f9699b350edd71acf727411cf7d0b287 rpmbuild/SOURCES/ume-launcher_0.6.3.tar.gz a9b58c94a1c4c0d59018ff14f4e3aa34 Download/ume-launcher_0.6.3.tar.gz * summary and description fine * correct buildroot * %{?dist} is used * license text included in package and marked with %doc * package meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) * changelog format fine * Packager/Vendor/Distribution/Copyright tags not used * Summary tag does not end in a period * Package compiles and build into RPM's on : i386 etc. * no Exclude Arch * BuildRequires for all build requerements (- the ones on the Exception list) * locales are handed using %find_lang * no shared libs * Package own all created directories. * No duplicate files in %files * Every %files section includes a %defattr(...) line * Package has a %clean with a rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT * consistently use of macros * Package contains code or or permissable content. * No large documentation * files in %doc dont affect runtime. * no header files * no static libs * package has no pkgconfig (.pc) files * no -devel subpackage * no ..la libtool archives * gui application, desktop-file-validate is used on .desktop file * package don't own files and dirs owned by other packages. * %install starts with an rm -rf %{buildroot} * rpm package filenames is in valid UTF-8. * no Rpath * no config files * no init scripts * no %makeinstall used * no Requires(pre,post) * rpmlint is ok on SRPM * rpmlint is ok on RPM's. Fix the sources and i will approve it -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review