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=226111 --- Comment #2 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2009-03-28 14:24:36 EDT --- rpmlint output: device-mapper-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation device-mapper-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation device-mapper-libs.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided device-mapper lvm2.src:31: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes lvm lvm2.src:52: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT lvm2.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /sbin/lvm 0555 lvm2.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lock/lvm 0700 lvm2.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /sbin/lvmdump 0555 lvm2.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /sbin/fsadm 0555 lvm2.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /etc/lvm/backup 0700 lvm2.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /etc/lvm/cache/.cache lvm2.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/lvm/cache/.cache 0600 lvm2.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /etc/lvm/archive 0700 lvm2.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /etc/lvm/cache 0700 lvm2.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided lvm lvm2-cluster.x86_64: E: missing-mandatory-lsb-keyword Description in /etc/rc.d/init.d/clvmd lvm2-cluster.x86_64: E: missing-mandatory-lsb-keyword Short-Description in /etc/rc.d/init.d/clvmd lvm2-cluster.x86_64: W: no-reload-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/clvmd lvm2-cluster.x86_64: W: incoherent-init-script-name clvmd 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 9 warnings. - Any reason why SMP make is not used? You should remove the DESTDIR argument from the build phase. - Modify init script to respect guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SysVInitScript 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. NEEDSFIX - Source code files do not contain license headers. Please have them added. MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. NEEDSFIX - Source url is missing, but source matches upstream. Must add source url. 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. OK 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