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=497634 Jan Klepek <jan.klepek@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jan.klepek@xxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Jan Klepek <jan.klepek@xxxxxx> 2009-04-26 08:52:19 EDT --- MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. - OK [makerpm@fetaciq result]$ rpmlint perl-App-Daemon-0.06-1.fc11.src.rpm perl-App-Daemon-0.06-1.fc11.noarch.rpm ~/rpmbuild/SPECS/perl-App-Daemon.spec 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. 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 meet the Packaging Guidelines - 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: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file - OK, no license file present MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. - OK MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. - OK MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. - OK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. - OK MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture... - OK MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires - OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. - OK, no locales 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. - OK MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable.... - OK, not relocatable MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. - OK MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. - OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. - OK MUST: Each package must have a %clean section... - OK MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. - OK MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. -OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. - OK MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. - OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. - OK, no header files MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. - OK, no static package MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). - OK, no .pc files MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix, then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. - OK, no .so library MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - OK, no devel package MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. -OK, no libtool archives MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, -OK, no GUI MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. - OK, perl package MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [25] - OK MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. - OK Conclusion: Looks OK, I would rather to have double checking from somebody else as I'm doing review for perl package for first time. should we put perl-sig mailing list into CC? -- 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