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=494726 --- Comment #4 from Christoph Wickert <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-07 21:05:20 EDT --- REVIEW for d7b9eb994e87725741b728a686490131 gnote-0.1.1-2.fc10.src.rpm OK - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package: rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/gnote-* gnote.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnote.schemas 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. OK - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. OK - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. (GPLv3+) OK - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. OK - MUST: The license file from the source package is included in %doc. OK - MUST: The spec file is in American English. OK - MUST: The spec file for the package is legible. OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package match the upstream source by MD5 2a2578cc69df41bdb07c3d754c5593e6 OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on i386 N/A - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. FAIL - MUST: Not all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires: dbus-devel and desktop-file-utils are missing N/A - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly with the %find_lang macro. N/A - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. N/A - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. OK - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates. OK - MUST: The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. Every %files section includes a %defattr(...) line. OK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. OK - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. OK - MUST: The package contains code, or permissable content. N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application. N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. N/A - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK - MUST: The package contains a GUI application and includes a %{name}.desktop file, and that file is properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. FAIL - MUST: The packages owns files or directories already owned by other packages: %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/apps/ OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: N/A - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. FAIL - SHOULD: The the package does not build in mock due to the missing BuildRequires mentioned above. OK - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. OK - SHOULD: The package functions as described. OK - SHOULD: Scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A - SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. N/A - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. Issues: - %files: you are owning all the apps folders inside %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor - BuildRequires: missing dbus-devel and desktop-file-utils - Requires: desktop-file-utils is not a requirement but a BuildReqiures - Requires: gtkmm24 is not necessary since gnote already requires libgdkmm-2.4.so.1 which is provided by that package - Gconf2 is missing for the scriptles: Requires(pre): GConf2 Requires(post): GConf2 Requires(preun): GConf2 Notes: - BuildRequires: libxml2-devel is pretty redundant since it is already required by libxml++-devel GConf2-devel and a lot more. - Consider using wildcards: %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/apps/gnote.png - Desktop file: remove --vendor="" -- 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