https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1626134
Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov(a)gmail.com> ---
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint is almost silent:
lemenkov ~/Downloads: rpmlint fips-*
fips.x86_64: W: invalid-url BugURL:
https://bugz.fedoraproject.org/fips
<urlopen error _ssl.c:1029: The handshake operation timed out>
^^^ Not yet available but will be when we add this package.
fips.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fips
^^^ Sad but true.
fips-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url BugURL:
https://bugz.fedoraproject.org/fips <urlopen error _ssl.c:1029: The handshake
operation timed out>
^^^ See above.
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
lemenkov ~/Downloads:
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. All Robert-André's notes above
were addressed.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
- I believe that the correct lincense field value is LGPLv3+ rather than
LGPLv3.
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
as %license.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No C/C++ header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so)
in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
+ The package includes a %{name}.desktop file, and this file is properly
installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
APPROVED.
Please fix License field before uploading.
--
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