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=225902 Jon Ciesla <limburg...@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |limburg...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org |limburg...@gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla <limburg...@gmail.com> 2012-04-05 13:41:53 EDT --- Fresh review: Good: - rpmlint checks return: intltool.spec:18: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes xml-i18n-tools The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause update problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if possible. intltool.noarch: W: self-obsoletion xml-i18n-tools obsoletes xml-i18n-tools = 0.11 The package obsoletes itself. This is known to cause errors in various tools and should thus be avoided, usually by using appropriately versioned Obsoletes and/or Provides and avoiding unversioned ones Fix. intltool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bonobo -> Bono, bonbon, Bonn The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. intltool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ui -> ii, u, i The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. intltool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US po -> PO, pew, op The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. Ignore. intltool.noarch: E: devel-dependency gettext-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. Does this really need gettext-devel or just gettext? Should perhaps the Requires and BuildRequires for gettext and gettext-devel be reversed? If this is correct, that's fine. Several incorrect FSF address errors, not a huge issue, fix bugs upstream if you like. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license ( GPLv2 with exceptions ) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file Otherwise it looks pretty good. Just the dependency questions. Let me know if you'd like me to commit anything. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
