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=453083 --- Comment #62 from Matthias Clasen <mclasen@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-25 13:14:32 EDT --- Package builds fine in mock Formal review: rpmlint output: samba4.x86_64: E: no-binary samba4-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. The warning is ignorable, the error is caused by the main package being an empty shell for now. I understand this is just temporary, until samba4 gets released, so I don't think this is an issue. package name: ok spec file name: ok packaging guidelines: ok; I guess you could be proactive and adapt to the coming recommendation of %global over %define, but thats not ratified yet, afaik license: ok license field: ok, but it would be nice to specify more exactly what parts are LGPL license file: ok spec language: ok spec legible: ok upstream source: ok buildable: ok buildrequires: ok excludearch: ok locale handling: ok ldconfig: ok relocatable: ok directory ownership: ok duplicate files: ok permissions: ok, I notice that pidl uses %defattr(-,root,root,-) whereas the others use %defattr(-,root,root). Accident ? The former is preferred, I think %clean: ok macro use: ok permissible content: ok large docs: ok %doc content: ok headers: ok pkgconfig: ok shared libs: ok -devel requires: ok, it requires -libs la files: ok gui apps: ok overlap with other packages: NOT ok. -pidl includes things that are owned by other packages, notably perl-Parse-Yapp %install: ok utf8 filenames: ok summary: - consider using %global - add license comment - consider cleaning up %defattr variation - fix -pidl conflicts -- 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