https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433686
Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov(a)gmail.com> ---
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint is silent
Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/scram-0.12.0-1.fc25.src.rpm
~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/scram-*
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SPECS:
+ 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 (GPLv3
or later).
+ 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 sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum scram-0.12.0.tar.gz*
ff7c38e0b40ada5472f9521817e2ff890ecc2803909e895772f92a4ea30d4c90
scram-0.12.0.tar.gz
ff7c38e0b40ada5472f9521817e2ff890ecc2803909e895772f92a4ea30d4c90
scram-0.12.0.tar.gz.1
Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:
+ 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 shouldn't list scram.1 as %docs and as man-page. Just modify
%install section in the following way:
install -p -D -m 644 doc/scram.1 -t %{buildroot}/%{_mandir}/man1/
rm -f doc/scram.1
install -p -D -m 644 scripts/scram.sh
%{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/bash-completion/completions/scram
There are other ways to handle this properly. This is minor issue anyway, so I
don't see this as a blocker.
+ 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.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
This package is
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