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=423821 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #14 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-09 09:10:58 EDT --- REVIEW: MUST Items: - rpmlint is not silent: [petro@Sulaco SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/nagios-plugins-rsync-1.02-0.1.fc9.ppc.rpm nagios-plugins-rsync.ppc: W: no-documentation nagios-plugins-rsync.ppc: E: no-binary nagios-plugins-rsync.ppc: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. [petro@Sulaco SPECS]$ Fortunately, these messages may be safely omitted. + 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 meets the Licensing Guidelines . + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. + The source package doesn't include the text of the license(s) in its own file. + 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@Sulaco SOURCES]$ md5sum check_rsync* bebe128f15e073abf414930e594a7984 check_rsync bebe128f15e073abf414930e594a7984 check_rsync.new [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture (ppc). + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + No locales + No shared libraries + The package isn't designed to be relocatable + The package doesn't create directories. + The 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 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT . + The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines . + The package contains code, or permissable content. + No large documentation files + The package doesn't include anything as %doc. + No header files. + No static libraries. + No pkgconfig(.pc) files. + No library files. + No devel packages + No .la libtool archives. + Not a GUI app + The 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. SHOULD Items: - SHOULD: The packager SHOULD query upstream to include license text(s) as a separate file. This package is 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review