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=460959 --- Comment #15 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-05 16:43:36 EDT --- REVIEW: - rpmlint is not silent: [petro@Sulaco SPECS]$ rpmlint ~/downloaded/libkml-* libkml-devel.ppc: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. [petro@Sulaco SPECS]$ I think this should be ignored. However I didn't checked whether I can build samples provided. %{__docdir}/libkml-devel-0.4.0/examples ). Another one thing I found questionable is the existence of "third_party" directory in %{__includedir} - we shouldn't allow user to build something against our version of boost. + The package is be 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. + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package matching the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ md5sum libkml-0.4.0.tar.gz* c6317783cec04f2e2dd992b0dd95c028 libkml-0.4.0.tar.gz c6317783cec04f2e2dd992b0dd95c028 libkml-0.4.0.tar.gz.srpm [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ + The package successfully compiles and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1033826 + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + No need to handle locales + The package calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. + The package is not designed to be relocatable. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + the package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT . + The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines . + The package contains code, or permissable content. + No large documentation files + Everithing, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + Header files are in a -devel package. + No static libraries. + No pkgconfig(.pc) files + The library files that ends in .so (without suffix) are in a -devel package. + devel packages requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. + Not a GUI application + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. So, please, resolve issue with third party libraries (I suspect that it even builds against shipped boost) and I'll continue. -- 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review