https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1238755
Kalev Lember <kalevlember(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Kalev Lember <kalevlember(a)gmail.com> ---
Fedora review gstreamer1-rtsp-server-1.4.0-4.fc22.src.rpm 2015-07-27
$ rpmlint gstreamer1-rtsp-server-1.4.0-4.fc22.src.rpm \
gstreamer1-rtsp-server \
gstreamer1-rtsp-server-debuginfo \
gstreamer1-rtsp-server-devel gstreamer1-rtsp-server-devel-docs
gstreamer1-rtsp-server.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) GStreamer -> G
Streamer, Streamer, Steamer
gstreamer1-rtsp-server.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) GStreamer -> G
Streamer, Streamer, Steamer
gstreamer1-rtsp-server.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgstrtspserver-1.0.so.0.400.0 /lib64/libgstbase-1.0.so.0
gstreamer1-rtsp-server.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgstrtspserver-1.0.so.0.400.0 /lib64/libgstrtp-1.0.so.0
gstreamer1-rtsp-server.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgstrtspserver-1.0.so.0.400.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0
gstreamer1-rtsp-server-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gstreamer1-rtsp-server-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
+ OK
! needs attention
+ rpmlint warnings are harmless and can be ignored
+ The package is named according to Fedora packaging guidelines
+ The spec file name matches the base package 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 license text (COPYING.LIB) is included in %license
+ Spec file is written in American English
+ Spec file is legible
+ Upstream sources match the sources in the srpm
974af05dbf867cade89b8d3101e3f197 gst-rtsp-server-1.4.0.tar.xz
974af05dbf867cade89b8d3101e3f197 Download/gst-rtsp-server-1.4.0.tar.xz
+ The package builds in koji
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires look sane
n/a locale handling
+ ldconfig in %post and %postun
+ Package does not bundle copies of system libraries
n/a Package isn't relocatable
+ Package owns all the directories it creates
+ No duplicate files in %files
+ Permissions are properly set
+ Consistent use of macros
+ The package must contain code or permissible content
+ Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ Files marked %doc should not affect the runtime of application
n/a Static libraries should be in -static
+ Development files should be in -devel
+ -devel must require the fully versioned base
+ Packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a Proper .desktop file handling
+ Doesn't own files or directories already owned by other packages
+ Filenames are valid UTF-8
Looks good to me.
APPROVED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component