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=736674
--- Comment #7 from Kalev Lember <kalevlember(a)gmail.com> 2011-09-09 08:54:07 EDT
---
Fedora review libgee06-0.6.1-4.fc15.src.rpm 2011-09-09
+ OK
! needs attention
$ rpmlint libgee06-0.6.1-4.fc16.src.rpm \
libgee06-0.6.1-4.fc16.x86_64.rpm \
libgee06-devel-0.6.1-4.fc16.x86_64.rpm \
libgee06-debuginfo-0.6.1-4.fc16.x86_64.rpm
libgee06.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) GObject -> G Object, Object
libgee06.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libgee -> lib gee,
lib-gee, libel
libgee06.src:9: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 9)
libgee06.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) GObject -> G Object, Object
libgee06.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libgee -> lib gee,
lib-gee, libel
libgee06.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libgee06-0.6.1/ChangeLog
libgee06-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
! Not strictly necessary, but would be nice to silence the
mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs rpmlint warning and ask upstream to
ship the ChangeLog file as UTF-8. Other warnings are just noise.
+ The package is named according to Fedora packaging guidelines
+ The spec file name matches the package base name
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The license field in the spec file matches the actual license
+ The package contains the license file (COPYING)
+ Spec file is written in American English
+ Spec file is legible
+ Upstream sources match sources in the srpm. md5sum:
9cf60f41f3aa10ac7f1f7e1d094e05a1 libgee-0.6.1.tar.bz2
9cf60f41f3aa10ac7f1f7e1d094e05a1 Download/libgee-0.6.1.tar.bz2
+ The package builds in koji
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires look sane
n/a The spec file MUST handle locales properly
+ ldconfig in %post and %postun
+ Package does not bundle copies of system libraries
n/a Package isn't relocatable
+ No duplicated files in %files section
+ Permissions are properly set
+ Consistent use of macros
+ The package must contain code or permissible content
n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ Files marked %doc should not affect package
+ Header files should be in -devel
n/a Static libraries should be in -static
+ Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package
+ -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
+ Directory ownership sane
+ Filenames are valid UTF-8
In addition to the rpmlint comment above, some small nits about the spec file,
none of which would be review blockers:
- Requires: pkgconfig in the -devel package is redundant because rpmbuild
automatically generates a dep on /usr/bin/pkg-config
- the 'rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT' at the beginning of %install and the
%defattr(-,root,root,-) lines are no longer needed with recent rpmbuild
- The comment "It's planned to provide bindings for further languages." in
description is misleading because the package now includes
gobject-introspection based bindings.
--
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.