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=484360 --- Comment #12 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-09 13:17:57 EDT --- + rpmlint output But better to fix the small problem in comment 11. + package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines Discussed on fedora-packaging mailing list here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2009-February/msg00022.html + specfile name matches the package base name + package should satisfy packaging guidelines + license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora + license matches the actual package license ---------------------------------- This is as far as I got with the review. There is some confusing stuff going on with the documentation in this package. It should appear in /usr/share/doc/%{name}-%{version} but instead appears directly under /usr/share. ? %doc includes license file ? spec file written in American English ? spec file is legible ? upstream sources match sources in the srpm ? package successfully builds on at least one architecture ? ExcludeArch bugs filed ? BuildRequires list all build dependencies ? %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* ? binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun ? does not use Prefix: /usr ? package owns all directories it creates ? no duplicate files in %files ? %defattr line ? %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ? consistent use of macros ? package must contain code or permissible content ? large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage ? files marked %doc should not affect package ? header files should be in -devel ? static libraries should be in -static ? packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' ? libfoo.so must go in -devel ? -devel must require the fully versioned base ? packages should not contain libtool .la files ? packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file ? packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages ? %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc. ? filenames must be valid UTF-8 Optional: ? if there is no license file, packager should query upstream ? translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available ? reviewer should build the package in mock ? the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures ? review should test the package functions as described ? scriptlets should be sane ? pkgconfig files should go in -devel ? shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin -- 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