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=484798 --- Comment #2 from Nils Philippsen <nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-10 08:18:56 EDT --- Sorry it took me so long to get started on this. Items marked "GOOD" or "PASS" fulfil the guidelines or they don't apply to this package. Items marked "CHECK" aren't covered by the guidelines but you should check and fix them anyway in my opinion. Items marked "BAD" violate the guidelines in some point and need to be fixed. Here we go: - BAD/CHECK: rpmlint on xiphos-3.0.1-1.fc10.src.rpm: xiphos.src:26: W: unversioned-explicit-provides gnomesword --> either add version/release or rather (if no package directly depends on gnomesword), get rid of it (preferred if possible) - GOOD: package name according to guidelines - GOOD: spec file named properly - BAD: licensing is unclear: source files mention "GPLv2+" (TBH, I haven't checked all of them), documentation mentions "GPLv2". Both are ok for Fedora, but please clarify this with upstream. - BAD: The documentation is licensed under GFDL, please mention this. - GOOD: license files are shipped as documentation - GOOD: the spec file is written in American English - GOOD: the spec file is legible - BAD: download URL doesn't work, the upstream URL is http://downloads.sourceforge.net/gnomesword/xiphos-3.0.1.tar.gz (i.e. not in the "xiphos" directory) - GOOD: source tarball is the same as from http://downloads.sourceforge.net/gnomesword/xiphos-3.0.1.tar.gz - GOOD: builds in mock for x86_64/Rawhide - CHECK: I found some warnings which you should check and eventually fix (and submit upstream): - "suggest parentheses around assignment used as truth value": these can be either legit (then add parentheses) or typos ("=" instead of "=="), please fix - "no return statement in function returning non-void", "control reaches end of non-void function": surely an omission, please fix - "implicit declaration of function '...'": probably headers that weren't included. I found that these can cause nasty, hard to debug crashes (see #486122 "Unexpected exit from gimp"), so please get these fixed as well. - "'...' may be used uninitialized in this function": ditto, please fix - "format '...' expects type '...', but argument ... has type '...'": may not show symptoms right now, but new compiler versions may break that please fix - There are other warnings where I'm not sure if the cause problems when running the program, perhaps consult with upstream about them (try to build with "-Werror" to catch all of them). - GOOD: all build dependencies listed - GOOD: uses %find_lang macro for locale files - PASS: no libraries shipped - PASS: not relocatable - GOOD: all shipped directories owned by package, direct dependency or filesystem - CHECK: please do or do not append a slash to directories in %files consistently - GOOD: no duplicates in %files - GOOD: permissions on files are set properly - GOOD: package has a %clean section - GOOD: package uses macros consistently - GOOD: the package contains code, not content - PASS: no large documentation files - GOOD: %doc doesn't affect runtime - PASS: no header files - PASS: no static libraries - PASS: no pkgconfig files - PASS: no libraries included - PASS: no devel package - GOOD: no *.la libtool archives - GOOD: desktop file is installed properly in %install - BAD: don't apply a vendor tag to the desktop file as this is a new package - GOOD: doesn't own files or directories owned by other packages - GOOD: build root is cleaned at the beginning of %install - GOOD: all file names are valid UTF-8 -- 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