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=526303
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2009-09-30 08:46:49 EDT --- Oh, another small note - since you're now using %{name}-${version}.tar.bz2 as the Source0, you don't need to add "-n %{name}" to "%setup -q". Please, remove it.
Assuming, that you'll do it, here is my
REVIEW:
+ rpmlint is silent. + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec . + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines . + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines . + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.
[petro@Sulaco BUILD]$ diff -ru fped fped-0/ [petro@Sulaco BUILD]$
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + 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 has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. | Everything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + All filenames in the packages are valid UTF-8.
APPROVED
(assuming, that you'll fix the %build section).