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=226483 --- Comment #8 from Vitezslav Crhonek <vcrhonek@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-28 11:50:23 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > rpmlint output: > tcsh.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/tcsh-6.15/Fixes > tcsh.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%postun rm > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. > > - Convert Fixes file to utf8 with iconv. Fixed. > > > MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used > consistently. ~OK > - Some comments could be nice in the install phase, it would make the spec file > a lot easier to read and understand. > > MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. > NEEDSFIX > - The license in source code is 3-clause BSD, not BSD with advertising. Change > License tag to BSD. > - Contact upstream to clarify this, since CopyRight is 4-clause. Fixed (I was probably confused with this Copyrigt file). > > MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as > provided in the spec URL. ~OK > - The file matches but source URL is bad; now the correct url has old/ before > the release. Switch to newest release will fix this. Fixed (rebase). > > MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK > MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. NEEDSFIX Commented before. > > MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. NEEDSFIX > - SMP make is not enabled. > - Use -p flag to install in install phase. Fixed. > > MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package > that owns the directory. OK > - Please change %{_mandir}/*/* to %{_mandir}/man1/*.1, since it's safer this > way. Fixed. > > MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect > runtime of application. NEEDSFIX > - Include BUGS and WishList in the package. Remember to convert the files to > utf8. Fixed. > > SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from > upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. 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: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. 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: 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. OK > SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK > SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK Changes commited to the devel branch. Please check it and let me know your opinion. Thanks! -- 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