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=501381
Jochen Schmitt <jochen(a)herr-schmitt.de> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Jochen Schmitt <jochen(a)herr-schmitt.de> 2009-06-04 12:43:18 EDT
---
Good:
+ Basename of the SPEC file matches with package name
+ Package name fullfill naming guidelines.
+ URL tag shows on proper project home page
+ Package contains valid license tag
+ License tag state GPLv2 as a valid OSS license
+ Package contains verbatin copy of the license text
+ Package contains proper Obsolete/Provides statement for renaming
+ Package contains no subpackages
+ Consistently usage of RPM macros
+ Proper definition of the BuildRoot
+ BuildRoot will be cleaned on beginning of %clean and %install
+ Could download upstream sources via spectool -g
+ Packaged sources matches with upstream
(md5sum: bbf9b8e74b9746d65b1fd1871a665208)
+ Local build works fine
+ Rpmlint is silent for source package
+ Scratch build on koji works fine.
* Files permissions are ok.
+ Java symlinks for jar files are created
+ All packaged files are owned by the package.
+ %doc stanza is small, so we don't need extra subpackage
+ Package contains proper %Changelog
Bad:
- Rpmlint complaints on binary rpm:
$ rpmlint -i 389-console-1.1.3-2.fc10.x86_64.rpm
389-console.x86_64: E: no-binary
The package should be of the noarch architecture because it doesn't contain
any binaries.
- Debuginfo package is empty
I want to suggest, that you should recreate this package as a
noarch package.
--
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.