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: usb_modeswitch - brings umts / 4g cards into operational mode https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444264 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-22 16:17 EST ------- Review for 847c6b0838ceda2c3c794748bd15446e usb_modeswitch-0.9.4-1.fc9.src.rpm FIX - MUST: rpmlint: rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/usb_modeswitch-* usb_modeswitch.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/usb_modeswitch.conf The file needs to be marked as config file: %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/usb_modeswitch.conf see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Configuration_files usb_modeswitch.i386: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.9.4 0.9.4-1.fc10 The version needs to be specified in the format %{version}-%{release} without disttag. This is important because changelog gets parsed automatically. And _please_ preserve the whole changelog and make an entry for every package release, even during review so we can track the changes. A correct changelog would look like this: %changelog * Sat Jun 22 2008 Robert M. Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0.9.4-1 - Update to 0.9.4 - Honor RPM_OPT_FLAGS * Sat May 26 2008 Robert M. Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0.9.4-0.1.beta2 - First package Release usb_modeswitch.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 1) I know that this is pedantic, but so is rpmlint. Ether use one, tabs OR spaces. I wouldn't call this a blocker because as the specfile is legible, so fix this if you like. I recommend to only use spaces for formatting because tabs are IMO harder to read in cvs diffs. OK - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines OK - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name} OK - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license (GPLv2+) OK - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license OK - MUST: The source package includes the text of the license and it is correctly included in %doc OK - MUST: The spec file is written in American English OK - MUST: The spec file is legible OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package match the upstream source by md5 3c03c3ae51a10d599c33c119693186c9 OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on i386 OK - MUST: No known ExcludeArch OK - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires OK - MUST: The package is not designed to be relocatable OK - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates (it creates none) OK - MUST: The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly OK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} OK - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines OK - MUST: The package contains code, no content OK - MUST: No large documentation files for a separate %{name}-doc package OK - MUST: The files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application OK - MUST: The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install the package runs 'rm -rf %{buildroot}' OK - MUST: All filenames in the package are valid UTF-8 OK - SHOULD: The package builds in mock FIX - SHOULD: The description in the package spec file contains German translations. Please also add a German Summary then: Summary(de): USB Modeswitch aktiviert UMTS-Karten And please use Umlauts. OK - SHOULD: The package seems to function as described (cannot really test in absence of an 4G Card) OK - SHOULD: The package is the latest version Please fix all issues I marked and then I will approve this package. NEEDSWORK. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review