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=712560 Fabian Affolter <fab...@bernewireless.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter <fab...@bernewireless.net> 2011-06-19 05:08:18 EDT --- Package Review ============== Package: Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one supported architecture Tested: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3141281 [x] Rpmlint output: Source RPM: [fab@laptop021 SRPMS]$ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-theme-selector-0.9-3.fc15.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-theme-selector.src: W: no-%build-section 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Binary RPM(s): [fab@laptop021 noarch]$ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-theme-selector-0.9-3.fc15.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [x] Package is not relocatable [-] Buildroot is correct (if it's still used) master : %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) spec file: [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license License type: GPLv2+ [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL Upstream source: 61640cfdc9ad1a418b18d6be195705f5 themeselector-0.9.tar.gz Build source: 61640cfdc9ad1a418b18d6be195705f5 themeselector-0.9.tar.gz [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [x] Architecture independent packages have: BuildArch: noarch [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. %find_lang used for locales [-] %{optflags} or RPM_OPT_FLAGS are honoured [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required [x] %install starts with rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [-] Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates [-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files [-] Permissions on files are set properly. %defattr(-,root,root,-) is in every %files section (if it's still used) [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime [-] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT (if it's still used) [-] Included tests passed successfully [x] Package consistently uses macros [x] Package contains code, or permissable content [x] Included filenames are in UTF-8 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required [-] Header files (.h) in -devel subpackage, if present [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackage, if present [-] Static libraries (.a) in -static subpackage, if present [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [-] -debuginfo subpackage is present and looks complete [x] No pre-built binaries (.a, .so*, executable) [-] Package contains a properly installed .desktop file if it is a GUI application [-] Follows desktop entry spec [-] Valid .desktop Name [-] Valid .desktop GenericName [-] Valid .desktop Categories [-] Valid .desktop StartupNotify [-] .desktop file installed with desktop-file-install in %install === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Timestamps preserved with cp and install [x] Spec use %global instead of %define [-] Uses parallel make (%{?_smp_mflags}) [-] Latest version is packaged [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available [x] Package functions as described [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct [-] File based requires are sane [x] Changelog in allowed format Wouldn't it be nice if the summary starts with a capital letter? Beside that I see no further blocker, package 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
