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=648023 Tim Niemueller <t...@niemueller.de> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Tim Niemueller <t...@niemueller.de> 2011-02-19 06:31:10 EST --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable (+) rpmlint is not silent, some messages can be ignored: - Source URL: You can append the file name to the Github URL and then you have a valid source URL. It will work to download the file this way. But content and tarball name differ, cf. recent discussion on fedora-devel and http://support.github.com/discussions/repos/4565-sha-in-download-filename-does-not-match-directory + 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 (ASL 2.0). + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. # sha256sum ../../SOURCES/basho-erlang_js-erlang_js-0.5.0-0-g5350ed2.tar.gz 5dbe617c22a89e888aaa576df9adedd0bf3c78e6eecf07a88ee48e48aba609b9 ../../SOURCES/basho-erlang_js-erlang_js-0.5.0-0-g5350ed2.tar.gz Github Download is currently down and I cannot download the tarball myself. Since I have reviewed packages by Peter before I trust him that the package contains the pristine source file. + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + The package is not designed to be relocatable. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + The package consistently uses macros. You use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT as a variable, but macros for everything else. Consider changing this, but since this is what rpmdev-newspec creates by default I consider this to be acceptable. + The package contains code, or permissible content. + No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. 0 No header files. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1). 0 No devel sub-package. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not a GUI application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Looks very good. Unit tests make me confident it works although I cannot try it myself. The macro usage is a little spot, but nothing that stops this review from succeeding. The README file does not contain any real information to use the package, only that you shouldn't try on Windows and building instructions. It can be omitted from %doc section. 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
