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=773442 Kashyap Chamarthy <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #2 from Kashyap Chamarthy <[email protected]> 2012-01-12 08:01:15 EST --- Here is my review. ######################################################## OK - %{?dist} tag is used in release OK - The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK - The spec file name must match the base package %{name} OK - The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines OK - The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines (license is LGPLv2+) OK - Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun OK - Rationale provided for static linking OK - The package MUST successfully compile and build OK - The spec file must be written in American English. OK - The spec file for the package MUST be legible OK - The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. ======================== [build@tesla SOURCES]$ gpg --verify libvirt-sandbox-0.0.1.tar.gz.asc gpg: Signature made Wed 11 Jan 2012 03:30:31 PM EST using RSA key ID 15104FDF gpg: Good signature from "Daniel P. Berrange <[email protected]>" gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner. Primary key fingerprint: DAF3 A6FD B26B 6291 2D0E 8E3F BE86 EBB4 1510 4FDF [build@tesla SOURCES]$ ======================== OK - A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings OK - Permissions on files must be set properly OK - Each package must have a %clean section OK - Each package must consistently use macros OK - The package must contain code, or permissible content OK - Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage -- No large documentation OK - If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application OK - Header files must be in a -devel package. OK - Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' - This is fetched as part of other deps. OK - Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives OK - No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK - All file names in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 OK - The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. ######################################################## Looks good to me. Hope I didn't miss anything. As Dan already pointed out, rpmlint bogus warnings can be ignored. Also, scratch build is successful per previous comment. Review Approved. -- 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 [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
