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=477570 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-01 06:10:17 EDT --- REVIEW: +/- rpmlint is not silent. However, all these messages already mentioned above and have been explained. [petro@Sulaco ppc]$ rpmlint couchdb-* couchdb.ppc: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/couchdb couchdb couchdb.ppc: W: non-standard-uid /var/run/couchdb couchdb couchdb.ppc: W: non-standard-uid /var/log/couchdb couchdb couchdb.ppc: E: devel-dependency libicu-devel couchdb.ppc: E: explicit-lib-dependency libicu-devel couchdb.ppc: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/couchdb/erlang/lib/couch-0.8.1-incubating/priv/lib/couch_erl_driver.so couch_erl_driver.so 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings. [petro@Sulaco ppc] + 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. + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ wget http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/couchdb/0.8.1-incubating/apache-couchdb-0.8.1-incubating.tar.gz.md5 -q -O - && md5sum apache-couchdb-0.8.1-incubating.tar.gz 89e037b370bef33be93f0f317e07615f apache-couchdb-0.8.1-incubating.tar.gz 89e037b370bef33be93f0f317e07615f apache-couchdb-0.8.1-incubating.tar.gz [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on all primary architectures: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1210362 + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + No need to handle locales. + The package calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not 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 permissable content. + No large documentation files. + Everything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + No c-header files. + No static libraries. + No pkgconfig(.pc) files. + No library files with a suffix. + The package does NOT contain any .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. I've got only one final advise - another one fix for already mentioned above sed one-liner :). Instead of current's: sed -i 's/\%{_localstatedir}\/run\/couchdb.pid/\%{_localstatedir}\/run\/couchdb\/couchdb.pid/g' \ $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_sysconfdir}/sysconfig/couchdb It should looks like: sed -i 's/\/var\/run\/couchdb.pid/\%{_localstatedir}\/run\/couchdb\/couchdb.pid/g' \ $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_sysconfdir}/default/couchdb Note - I changed only the latter mentioning of /var. Please, consider adding this final change, and this package is ============ ============ = APPROVED = ============ ============ -- 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