[Bug 566411] Review Request: umit - Nmap frontend

[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=566411

Kalev Lember <kalev at smartlink.ee> changed:

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

--- Comment #5 from Kalev Lember <kalev at smartlink.ee> 2010-03-13 17:02:09 EST ---
The package review process needs reviewers!  If you haven't done any package
reviews recently, please consider doing one.

Fedora review umit-1.0-0.2.RC.fc12.src.rpm 2010-03-13

+ OK
! needs attention

rpmlint output:
umit.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Nmap -> Map, N map, Nap
umit.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) frontend -> fronted, front end,
front-end
umit.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Nmap -> Map, N map, Nap
umit.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) frontend -> fronted, front end,
front-end
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

! rpmlint warning about "frontend" is correct and it should be changed to
"front-end".
The other spelling error is just harmless noise.

+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ Spec file name matches the base package name
+ The package follows the Packaging Guidelines
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The license field in the spec file matches the actual license
+ The package contains the license files (COPYING, COPYING_HIGWIDGETS)
+ Spec file is written in American English
+ Spec file is legible
+ Upstream sources match sources in the srpm. md5sum:
  e096ac3795017ba87be4ed569c520be8  umit-1.0RC.tar.gz
  e096ac3795017ba87be4ed569c520be8  Download/umit-1.0RC.tar.gz
+ The package builds in koji
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires look sane
+ The spec file handles locales properly
+ Packages does not bundle copies of system libraries
n/a Does not use Prefix: /usr
+ Package owns all directories it creates
+ No duplicate files in %files
+ Permissions are properly set and %files has %defattr
+ %clean contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
+ Consistent use of macros
+ Package contains code or permissible content
n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
! Files marked %doc should not affect package
%{_docdir}/%{name} shouldn't be marked as %doc because the content affects
package runtime (an error is displayed clicking Help->Help if the files don't
exist).

n/a Header files should be in -devel
n/a Static libraries should be in -static
n/a Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
n/a Packages should not contain libtool .la files
+ Packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ Packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ Filenames must be valid UTF-8


Please fix frontend -> front-end and remove the %doc before importing it into
CVS. Those are minor issues and otherwise the package looks good.

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.