Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~bjohnson/nettop.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~bjohnson/nettop-0.2.3-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: Nettop is a program which looks like top, but is for network packets. $ rpmlint *rpm nettop.src: W: summary-not-capitalized top-like program for network packets nettop.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized top-like program for network packets 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. These warning can be ignored because it is the proper capitalization for this program name, it just happens to be at the beginning of the line.
Change the summary to "A top-like program for network packets" to fix the rpmlint warnings.
Furthermore, add comments in the spec file as to why Source1-2 and Patch0-2 are needed. Also, please rename your patches to start with nettop-, e.g. # Patch to fix compilation errors Patch0: nettop-compile.patch This way build directories stay cleaner.
And a few more comments: use %{version} in the Source0 line to ease up the maintaining of the spec file. The upstream project server seems to be down, so a review cannot be performed at this stage.
Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~bjohnson/nettop.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~bjohnson/nettop-0.2.3-2.fc12.src.rpm * Tue Nov 24 2009 Bernard Johnson <bjohnson> - 0.2.3-2 - begin summary line with 'A' - source0 by name/version macros - better comments regarding additional sources & patches - source1/2 were reversed $ rpmlint *rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Offsite http://srparish.net/scripts/ seams down. Meantime where links to upstream bugreports for each patches? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment
I sent the author an email asking about the website. I will let you know when I get a response.
PING Since it's been more than six months with no progress; I guess this bug should be closed soon if there is no response, shouldn't it?
Due to the lack of response this review is now considered as stalled. I'm closing this bug just as described in Fedora's Policy for stalled package reviews http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews