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=226515 --- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-21 10:27:06 EDT --- Ok, since 2.2.14. is in Rawhide - here is my review request: - rpmlint is not silent: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/stuff/unixodbc_rpmlint.log We may ignore messages, regarding non-versioned so-files in %{_libdir} and zero-length /etc/odbc.ini, however other messages needs fixing. * You must convert ChangeLof from iso8859-1 in %prep * You must remove executable permisson from files, mentioned my rpmlint. +/- The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Unfortunately (perhaps, due to historical reasons) GUI module for unixODBC is named as unixODBC-kde, although it has almost nothing to do with KDE (purely Qt-based - the only link between them is DataManager(II) applications, used by KDE afaik). To be honest, I'd like this package to be renamed to something like unixODBC-gui, but the unixODBC package has very long history and even this small change may be relatively painless. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. Although I'm not a native english speaker and, therefore, this requirement of Fedora Review Giiudelines always confusing me :). + The spec file for the package is be legible. + The sources used to build the package are matching the upstream source: [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ md5sum unixODBC-2.2.14.tar.gz* f47c2efb28618ecf5f33319140a7acd0 unixODBC-2.2.14.tar.gz f47c2efb28618ecf5f33319140a7acd0 unixODBC-2.2.14.tar.gz_from_srpm [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1311282 + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, calling ldconfig in %post and %postun. + A package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list any file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. +/- Permissions on files must be set properly, except those, noted above (easyfix). + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissable content. + The package does not contain etremely large chunks of documentation. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + C header files are in a -devel package. + No static libraries. + The package does not contains pkgconfig(.pc) files. + The devel sub-package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. - The sub-package containing GUI applications does include a %{name}.desktop file. Unfortunately, it does NOT properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in the package must be valid UTF-8. So, please, * use proper installation procedure of desktop-files ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop ) * Suppress rpmlint messages -- 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