[Bug 622293] Review Request: erlang-erlydtl - Django Templates for Erlang

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=622293

Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> 2010-08-16 15:22:52 EDT ---
Ok, good. I don't see any other issues so far so here is my

REVIEW:

+/- rpmlint is NOT silent (fortunately almost all of its messages can be safely
ignored in this particular case)

Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint
../RPMS/ppc/erlang-erlydtl-0.6.0-1.fc12.ppc.rpm 
erlang-erlydtl.ppc: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Erlang implementation of the
Django Template Language.
erlang-erlydtl.ppc: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bytecode -> byte
code, byte-code, byte
erlang-erlydtl.ppc: E: no-binary
erlang-erlydtl.ppc: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS:

Please, take care of 'summary-ended-with-dot' arning - just remove trailing dot
from summary. Spelling error is just a false positive. The rest two entries are
just because of erlang-rlated package's structure - it must be installed into
%_libdir no matter of whether it is arch-specific or noarch.

+ 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 (MIT) .
0 The source package doesn't include the text of the license(s) in its own file
+ 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:

Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum erlydtl-0.6.0.tar.gz*
4d6ceeaef064281f0de51f4f4bd6c1662a3217642bf2dd96b80adc5063e85e34 
erlydtl-0.6.0.tar.gz
4d6ceeaef064281f0de51f4f4bd6c1662a3217642bf2dd96b80adc5063e85e34 
erlydtl-0.6.0.tar.gz.1
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2404579

+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files
+ 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
+ Everything the package includes as %doc does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No C/C++ header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 The package does NOT contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1)
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The packages 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 the package are valid UTF-8.

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.