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=487312 Thomas Woerner <twoerner@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(pknirsch@xxxxxxxx | |om) --- Comment #3 from Thomas Woerner <twoerner@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-26 10:14:53 EDT --- MUST Items ---------- [WARN] rpmlint output $ rpmlint tuned-0.1.1-1.fc10.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint tuned-0.1.1-1.fc11.noarch.rpm tuned.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/tuned $prog 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [OK] The warning here can be ignored, it is not incoherent, because $prog contains the correct value. $ rpmlint tuned-utils-0.1.1-1.fc11.noarch.rpm tuned-utils.noarch: W: no-documentation tuned-utils.noarch: E: devel-dependency kernel-debuginfo 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. [WARN] There is no description for the utils package. [OK] The error can be ignored, the kernel-debuginfo package is requires to use systemtap. [OK] Named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [OK] The spec file name must match the base package. [FAIL/INFO] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. FAIL: The description is not more than the summary. Please add some more information maybe on how it is working or how it should be used. INFO: There is a README and README.txt. What is the difference? [OK] Meets the Licensing Guidelines (GPLv2+). [OK] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [OK] License file included in %doc. [OK] Spec file written in American English. [OK] Spec file is legible. [OK] Source matches upstream. [OK] Package successfully compiles and builds at least one primary architecture. [OK] No build dependencies. [OK] No localized files, therefore no locale support needed. [OK] No schared libs, therefore no ldconfig needed. [OK] Not relocatable. [OK] Package ownes all directories it creates. [OK] Does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [OK] Permissions on files are set properly. [OK] Has a correct %clean section. [OK] Macros consistently used. [OK] Code or permissible content. [OK] No large documentation files, therefore no -doc subpackage needed. [OK] %doc files don't affect runtime. [OK] No header files and no libraries, therefore no -devel subpackage needed. [OK] No static libs, therefore no -static subpackage needed. [OK] No pkgconfig file, therefore no requires for pkgconfig needed. [OK] No GUI applications, therefore no %{name}.desktop file needed. [OK] Does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [OK] Cleanup at the beginning of %install. [OK] All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items ------------ [OK] License file included. [BAD] No translations for Non-English languages. [OK] Builds in mock. [OK] Should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [BAD] Package functions as described: Not enough information for this. [OK] Scriptlets seem to be sane. [OK] No -devel subpackage, therefore no requirement for base package needed. [OK] -utils subpackage is independent, therefore no requirement for base package needed. [OK] No pkgconfig files, therefore no placement needed. [OK] No file dependencies outside of /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