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=226159 --- Comment #3 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2009-03-28 13:57:44 EDT --- rpmlint output: mozplugger.src:14: E: buildprereq-use libX11-devel mozplugger.src:15: E: buildprereq-use libXt-devel mozplugger.src:18: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes plugger mozplugger.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/mozplugger-1.10.1/README mozplugger.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided plugger mozplugger.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mozpluggerrc mozplugger-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/mozplugger-1.10.1/npapi/include/npupp.h mozplugger-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/mozplugger-1.10.1/npapi/include/npapi.h mozplugger-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/mozplugger-1.10.1/npapi/include/jri_md.h mozplugger-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/mozplugger-1.10.1/npapi/include/jritypes.h mozplugger-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/mozplugger-1.10.1/npapi/include/jri.h mozplugger-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/mozplugger-1.10.1/npapi/common/npunix.c 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 10 warnings. - Fix the above (to fix debuginfo errors you need to remove executable perms of the source code files in the setup phase) - Consider updating buildroot to %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) - Source URL is incorrect, also version is quite old (newest is 1.12.0, released in November). http://mozplugger.mozdev.org/files/mozplugger-1.12.0.tar.gz MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. OK MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. NEEDSFIX - Matches upstream source but source url incorrect as stated above. MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. NEEDSFIX - %{_libdir}/mozilla is provided by mozilla-filesystem on F10; this package probably shouldn't provide the dir, just the plugin file instead. MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK MUST: Clean section exists. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. OK MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. OK MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. OK MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. OK MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK -- 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