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=672582
Ruediger Landmann r.landm...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||r.landm...@redhat.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|r.landm...@redhat.com
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Ruediger Landmann r.landm...@redhat.com 2011-03-15
01:29:01 EDT ---
Thanks Petr -- nice and clean :)
ACCEPT
- = N/A
/ = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[/] Rpmlint output is clean:
$ rpmlint SPECS/perl-Perl-Critic-Nits.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint SRPMS/perl-Perl-Critic-Nits-1.0.0-1.fc14.src.rpm
perl-Perl-Critic-Nits.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
ValuesAndExpressions - Expressions, Expressionistic, Expressionless
perl-Perl-Critic-Nits.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
ProhibitAccessOfPrivateData
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
$ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/perl-Perl-Critic-Nits-1.0.0-1.fc14.noarch.rpm
perl-Perl-Critic-Nits.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
ProhibitAccessOfPrivateData
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[/] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[/] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[/] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Language specific
items
[/] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[/] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPL+ or Artistic
[-] 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.
[/] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[/] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
$ md5sum SOURCES/Perl-Critic-Nits-v1.0.0.tar.gz
e31188815713b86eb57a8889f19c45b2 SOURCES/Perl-Critic-Nits-v1.0.0.tar.gz
$ md5sum ~/Download/Perl-Critic-Nits-v1.0.0.tar.gz
e31188815713b86eb57a8889f19c45b2
/home/rlandmann/Download/Perl-Critic-Nits-v1.0.0.tar.gz
[/] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2912776
[/] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[/] 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 (with the %find_lang macro)
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[/] Package does not bundle copies of system libraries
[/] Package is not relocatable.
[/] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[/] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[/] Permissions on files are set properly
[/] %files section includes a %defattr(...) line
[/] Package consistently uses macros.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[/] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] -devel packages require base package with full versioning.
[/] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[/] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[/] Filenames are valid UTF-8
--
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
