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=781858
Peter Robinson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Peter Robinson 2012-01-15 17:27:59
EST ---
Looks fine. APPROVED
+ rpmlint output
$ rpmlint openstack-tempo.spec
openstack-tempo-0-0.1.20110909git940d9dba.fc16.src.rpm
openstack-tempo-0-0.1.20110909git940d9dba.fc16.noarch.rpm
openstack-tempo.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: openstack-tempo-940d9dba.tar.bz2
openstack-tempo.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) cron -> corn, con, crone
openstack-tempo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cron -> corn, con,
crone
openstack-tempo.src: W: invalid-url Source0: openstack-tempo-940d9dba.tar.bz2
openstack-tempo.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) cron -> corn, con,
crone
openstack-tempo.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cron -> corn,
con, crone
openstack-tempo.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tempo-cron-snapshot
openstack-tempo.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tempo-backup
openstack-tempo.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nova-snapshot.sh
openstack-tempo.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tempo-api
openstack-tempo.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nova-backup.sh
openstack-tempo.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tempo-snapshot
openstack-tempo.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tempo-cron-backup
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings.
+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
+ license matches the actual package license
+ latest version packaged
+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
f8bee95fd00c14f5d4fa3d0610a5167b openstack-tempo-940d9dba.tar.bz2
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
+ tested using koji scratch build
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun+ does not use Prefix: /usr
+ package owns all directories it creates
n/a no duplicate files in %files
+ Package perserves timestamps on install
+ Permissions on files must be set properly
+ %defattr line
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package runtime
n/a header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
n/a devel must require the fully versioned base
+ packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8
Optional:
n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream to include it
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
available
+ reviewer should build the package in mock/koji
n/a the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
n/a review should test the package functions as described
+ scriptlets should be sane
n/a non -devel packages should require fully versioned base
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or
/usr/sbin
- Package should have man files
--
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
