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=552822 --- Comment #3 from Matej Cepl <mcepl@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-06 07:35:29 EDT --- + GOOD: rpmlint is bradford:rpmbuild$ rpmlint -i bradford:devel$ rpmlint -i perltidy-20090616-3.fc13.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. bradford:devel$ rpmlint -i noarch/perltidy-20090616-3.fc13.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. bradford:devel$ + GOOD: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . + GOOD: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Package is long time in the practice so renaming doesn't make much sense (and the name makes sense). + GOOD: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. - BAD: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Actually it should be GPLv2 only (not GPLv2+ ... cannot find anywhere "or later"). + GOOD: COPYING file is in %doc. + GOOD: The spec file is written in American English. + GOOD: The spec file for the package is legible. + GOOD: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5: 63baa94a96fc5c272e06e72e589e7673 + GOOD: The package successfully compiles and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. yes, builds on x86_64/F12 + GOOD: it's noarch so no issues with other architectures. + GOOD: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. (builds in koji) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=121809 + GOOD: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. No locale support. + GOOD: %post and %postun scripts OK no scripts + GOOD: not relocatable - UNSURE: A package owns all directories that it creates. I don't like this in %files: %{perl_vendorlib}/Perl/ Is this correct? Why not just %{perl_vendorlib}/Perl/Tidy.pm + GOOD: A package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. + GOOD: Permissions on files are set automatically. + GOOD: Each package have a %clean section. + GOOD: Each package consistently use macros. + GOOD: The package contains code, or permissable content. + GOOD: No large documentation files, so no a -doc subpackage. + GOOD: Files registered in %doc does not affect the runtime of the application. + GOOD: No header files. + GOOD: No static libraries. + GOOD: No pkgconfig(.pc) files. + GOOD: .so file is provided in -devel package. no .so file + GOOD: Correct Requires in -devel subpackage. no -devel package + GOOD: No .la libtool archives. + GOOD: Packages does not contain GUI applications. + GOOD: Packages does not own files or directories owned by other packages. + GOOD: Runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install + GOOD: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. + GOOD: Includes license text. Please correct the indicated issues. -- 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. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list Fedora-perl-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list
