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=226365 --- Comment #3 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2009-03-28 14:42:11 EDT --- rpmlint output: redhat-rpm-config.noarch: W: no-documentation redhat-rpm-config.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/find-provides.d/firmware.prov 0644 redhat-rpm-config.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/find-provides.d/modalias.prov 0644 redhat-rpm-config.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot Red Hat specific rpm configuration files. redhat-rpm-config.noarch: W: no-url-tag redhat-rpm-config.noarch: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib redhat-rpm-config.src:121: W: macro-in-%changelog name redhat-rpm-config.src:265: W: macro-in-%changelog configure redhat-rpm-config.src:274: W: macro-in-%changelog __spec_install_post redhat-rpm-config.src: E: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install redhat-rpm-config.src: W: no-%build-section redhat-rpm-config.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot Red Hat specific rpm configuration files. redhat-rpm-config.src: W: no-url-tag 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 9 warnings. - Fix the macros in changelog (should be %%name instead of %name etc). - Clean buildroot before install. - Add disclaimer from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#We_are_Upstream to spec file. - Remove dot from summary and set executable flags on scripts. - Drop use of %{_prefix}. - Change buildroot to %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) 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 - Since we are upstream it should be no problem to get the license specified and the license files included in the package. MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. NEEDSFIX 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. NEEDSFIX SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. NEEDSFIX SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. 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