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=720998 --- Comment #9 from Richard Shaw <hobbes1...@gmail.com> 2011-07-15 14:38:16 EDT --- +: OK -: must be fixed =: should be fixed (at your discretion) ?: Question or clairification needed N: not applicable MUST: [+] rpmlint output: shown in comment: No major issues. [+] follows package naming guidelines [+] spec file base name matches package name [+] package meets the packaging guidelines [+] package uses a Fedora approved license: BSD [+] license field matches the actual license. [+] license file is included in %doc [+] spec file is in American English [+] spec file is legible [+] sources match upstream: md5sum matches (6e182f15bf9bc8ffe95547c1cdd7e7b4) [+] package builds on at least one primary arch: Tested F14 x86_64 [N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch [+] all build requirements in BuildRequires [N] spec file handles locales properly [+] ldconfig in %post and %postun [+] no bundled copies of system libraries [N] no relocatable packages [+] package owns all directories that it creates [+] no files listed twice in %files [+] proper permissions on files [+] consistent use of macros [+] code or permissible content [N] large documentation in -doc [+] no runtime dependencies in %doc [+] header files in -devel [N] static libraries in -static [+] .so in -devel [+] -devel requires main package [+] package contains no libtool archives [N] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install/validate [+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages [+] all filenames in UTF-8 SHOULD: [+] query upstream for license text [N] description and summary contains available translations [+] package builds in mock [+] package builds on all supported arches [?] package functions as described [+] sane scriptlets [+] subpackages require the main package [N] placement of pkgconfig files [N] file dependencies versus package dependencies [N] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts Ok, it's not a big deal but the only thing I would change is: %doc doc to %doc doc/* Right now documentation is going into: /usr/share/doc/OpenNL-3.2.1/doc which is redundant... Let me know what you think! Richard -- 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