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=225683 --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-18 05:48:01 EDT --- Notes: * "BuildRequires: gawk" is redundant (gawk is in Exceptions list https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 ). Not an issue, though. * Looks like this package disallows parallel builds. You should add note about it. * It's a good idea to add notes about patch status - upstreamed (with bz# or with maillist's link), specific for fedora and therefore shouldn't be upstreamed, etc * What the purpose of expression at line 16? Other things (except this sorrow situation with RPM_OPT_FLAGS, described above) looks sane. So this is a formal review: - rpmlint is not silent - see output (except numerous messages about devel-file-in-non-devel-package, which may be safely ignored, and binaryinfo-readelf-failed due to my powerpc arch): [petro@Sulaco SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/dev86-*|grep -v devel-file-in-non-devel-package | grep -v binaryinfo-readelf-failed dev86.ppc: E: zero-length /usr/lib/bcc/include/math.h dev86.ppc: E: zero-length /usr/lib/bcc/include/linux/ioctl.h dev86.ppc: W: obsolete-not-provided bin86 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 105 warnings. [petro@Sulaco SPECS]$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/dev86-0.16.17-12.fc10.src.rpm dev86.src:13: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes bin86 dev86.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 16, tab: line 44) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [petro@Sulaco SPECS]$ I think that these messages are safe to ignore too. + The package is 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. - File, containing the text of the license(s), MUST be included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + No need to handle locales. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package doesn't contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. + No large documentation files. + All files, that the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. +/- Header files must be in a -devel package, but I'm in doubts whether this rule can or cannot be applied in this case. And the next one. +/- Static libraries must be in a -static package. See note above. + No pkgconfig(.pc) files + No .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 %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review