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=480538 Simon Wesp <cassmodiah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 AssignedTo|jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #2 from Simon Wesp <cassmodiah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-18 15:59:53 EDT --- I just took a short look at your package.. just a very short look RPMLINT-ERRORS -------------- 1) - iptux.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot A software for sharing in LAN. remove the . 2) - iptux.src: E: description-line-too-long A software for sharing and transporting files and directories in LAN. It is written by C++ and the skin is designed by gtk. Iptux is based on ipmsg, so you can use it send files to a Windows PC which has an ipmsg Windows edition in Lan. split it in more and shorter lines 3) - iptux.src: W: non-standard-group Application/Network take a look at /usr/share/doc/rpm-4.6.0/GROUPS Applications/Internet 4) - iptux.src: W: invalid-license GNU General Public License v2 take a look at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing GPLv2 5) - iptux.i386: E: explicit-lib-dependency glib you don't need glib in Requires 6) - iptux.i386: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog -0.4.4-3 ['0.4.4-3.fc10', '0.4.4-3'] you packed the source! don't do this. use the source that upstream given. 7) - iptux.i386: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/zh_CN/LC_MESSAGES/iptux.mo %files -f %{name}.lang Things in the specfile ---------------------- a) you: Source0: iptux-0.4.4-3.tar.gz should: Source0: http://iptux.googlecode.com/files/iptux-0.4.4.tar.gz better: Source0: http://iptux.googlecode.com/files/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz b) %doc INSTALL NEWS README TODO AUTHORS - don't use INSTALL for %doc, because users are not interessted in a howto of installation. this is a package and the installation was done by you. - add the COPYING file to %doc, because License file are very - NEWS looks like "this is just a chinese header"-file. if news don't show news, just an header you should remove it - Same for README c) you %{_prefix}/bin/iptux very better: %{bindir}/%{name} d) you: %{_datadir}/applications/* better: %{_datadir}/applications/iptux.* or: %{_datadir}/applications/iptux.desktop e) you: %{_datadir}/locale/* add %files -f %{name}.lang and remove this completely f) you: %{_datadir}/pixmaps/* better: %{_datadir}/pixmaps/%{name}/ %{_datadir}/pixmaps/ip-tux.png %{_datadir}/pixmaps/ip-penguin.png to d/e/f please create an ownage of the files YOU packaged. not of all in the directory, because you will take ownage of files you haven't created. files of other packages. g)desktop file install --rebuild-mime-info-cache Why? ip-tux doesn't need to mime a h) desktop file install --delete-original Why are you deleting the desktop file to reinstall it again. You should validate the desktopfile https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage i) Add the desktop-file-utils to BuildRequires j) BuildRequires: glib-devel, GConf2, gtk2-devel Requires: glib, gtk2, GConf2, gtk2 rpm can create Requires from the BuildRequires. Example: If you say BuildRequires: gtk2-devel rpm will automaticly create Requires: gtk2 gtk2 is doubled... k) %post update-desktop-database %{_datadir}/applications &>/dev/null || : %postun update-desktop-database %{_datadir}/applications &>/dev/null || : you don't need this. why are you adding these commands? l) you should think about better texts for the changelog and use the right version-number. I will remove me from Asignee and add me to CC because you are sponsored and you need a sponsor. I will add the "need sponor bug" I can not sponsor you -- 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