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=631898 Jan Kaluža <jkal...@redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |jkal...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org |jkal...@redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review?, | |needinfo?(jvce...@redhat.co | |m) --- Comment #1 from Jan Kaluža <jkal...@redhat.com> 2010-09-22 09:55:18 EDT --- If you don't plan to have Fatrat in EPEL5 and below, you do not need to define "BuildRoot:..." anymore, rpmbuild will use a sane one automatically (since F-10). You also do not need to clean the buildroot manually at the beginning of %install (since F-10). http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag > $ rpmlint fatrat-1.1.2-1.fc15.src.rpm > fatrat.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US podcasts -> podcast, pod > casts, pod-casts > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. > $ rpmlint fatrat* > fatrat.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US podcasts -> podcast, > pod casts, pod-casts > fatrat-czshare.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) plugin -> plug in, > plug-in, plugging > fatrat-czshare.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugin -> plug > in, plug-in, plugging > fatrat-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugins -> plug > ins, plug-ins, plugging > fatrat-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > fatrat-opensubtitles.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) plugin -> plug > in, plug-in, plugging > fatrat-opensubtitles.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugin > -> plug in, plug-in, plugging > 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. No real problem here. Formal review according to Review Guidelines: Explanation: [ok] .... the package meets the guideline item [--] .... the guideline item is not relevant for this package [ERR] ... the package fails to meet the guideline and must be fixed. ==================== [ok] rpmlint must be run on every package. [ok] named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ok] The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [ok] License must be Fedora approved; Licensing Guidelines. [ok] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [ok] license file must packaged in %doc. [ok] spec file in American English. rpmlint shows some warnings, but I think they are tollerable. [ok] spec legible. [ok] sources must match the upstream source [ok] must compile and build. [--] ExcludeArch if it does not. [ok] complete and sensible BuildRequires [--] handling of locales [--] ldconfig for dynamic libs [ok] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [--] rules for relocatable packages [ok] directory ownership [ok] no duplicate listing in %files [ok] sane permissions; %defattr(...) [ok] consistent macro usage [ok] code or permissable content [ok] large doc [ok] header files [--] static libs [--] .so in -devel [ok] devel requires base package [--] remove .la files [ERR] GUI app must include a %{name}.desktop and use desktop-file-install > $desktop-file-validate fatrat.desktop > fatrat.desktop: warning: value "Application;Network;" for key "Categories" in > group "Desktop Entry" contains a deprecated value "Application" > fatrat.desktop: warning: value "fatrat.png" for key "Icon" in group "Desktop > Entry" is an icon name with an extension, but there should be no extension as > described in the Icon Theme Specification if the value is not an absolute path I'm not sure if that's real problem, but it would be fine to have it fixed. [ok] no owning of other packages' files/dirs [ok] UTF-8 filenames Formal review according to Packaging Guidelines: [ok] naming [ok] version and release [ok] Licensing [ok] no inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries [ok] spec legibility [ok] arch support [ok] filesystem layout [ok] changelogs [ok] tags [ok] BuildRoot [ok] Requires [ok] BuildRequires [ok] summary and description [ok] encoding [ok] compiler flags [ok] debuginfo [ok] devel packages [ok] no duplication of system libraries [ok] no rpath [ok] config files [--] initscripts [ok] desktop files [ERR] Icon tag in Desktop Files mentioned above [ok] macros (inconsistent usage, as already noted) [--] handling locale files [ok] timestamps [ok] parallel make [--] scriptlets [--] conditional deps [--] relocatable packages [ok] code vs content [ok] file and dir ownership [--] users and groups [ok] web apps [ok] no conflicts [ok] no kernel modules [ok] nothing in /srv [ok] no bundling [ok] no fonts bundling [--] epoch [ok] symlinks [ok] man pages -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
