[Bug 587315] Review Request: pmars - Portable corewar system with ICWS'94 extensions

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu May 6 15:51:35 UTC 2010


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=587315

Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi> changed:

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

--- Comment #7 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi> 2010-05-06 11:51:32 EDT ---
rpmlint output:

$ rpmlint pmars-*
pmars.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) corewar -> core war, core-war,
forewarn
pmars.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US corewar -> core war,
core-war, forewarn
pmars.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US redcode -> red code,
red-code, redcoat
pmars.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
pmars.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) corewar -> core war, core-war,
forewarn
pmars.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US corewar -> core war,
core-war, forewarn
pmars.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US redcode -> red code,
red-code, redcoat
pmars.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.

Please fix the spelling error.

Also, please place the temporary doc dir stuff in %prep, after the application
of the patches.


MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a
duplicate. OK
MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used
consistently. OK
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the 
Licensing Guidelines. OK
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. OK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package
that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A
MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
runtime of application. OK
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files
ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A

MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. ~OK
- Although this is an X application, it is operated purely from the command
prompt (it needs a warrior file as input).

MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from
upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK


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.



More information about the package-review mailing list