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=226312 Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2009-04-04 17:49:26 EDT --- rpmlint output: ppc64-utils.ppc: W: no-documentation ppc64-utils.ppc: W: no-url-tag ppc64-utils.ppc: E: no-binary ppc64-utils.src: E: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install ppc64-utils.src: W: no-url-tag 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings. 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. OK - Doesn't have source url, but there's nothing to point to since the package is empty. 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: %{?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 Summary: - There's no documentation or source since the package is empty. - No binary error is due to package being ExclusiveArch ppc{,64}; noarch is not a possibility due to the nature of the package. - Buildroot is not cleaned, but nothing is installed anyway. Cleaning of buildroot might be a good thing to have, just in case. and most importantly - although Fedora has a policy of requiring code or content in the package, in this case the package is needed due to legacy considerations. I'm closing this from clogging the review request list in BZ. In the long run some other package should probably take the role of this package, e.g. basesystem (which seems to be also a metapackage) [which is actually noarch, and as such can't be used]. You can fix the cleaning issue in CVS, if you bother. -- 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