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=481224 --- Comment #20 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-05-06 01:15:21 EDT --- Just found another one easy-to-fix issue - no need to ship INSTALL file in %doc. It's useless. Please remove it. REVIEW: - rpmlint is not silent - see above. Easy to fix, anyway. + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + 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. +/- The spec file for the package MUST be legible (except the silly trick with rabbitmq-script-wrapper - I advice you to add some explanations in spec-file, however it's not a blocker). - The sources, used to build the package, MUST match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ md5sum rabbitmq-server-1.5.4.tar.gz* dab74bc1a3051cfc94a11abeabb8b0c6 rabbitmq-server-1.5.4.tar.gz 9d43f979d533df743ca7f6050f142040 rabbitmq-server-1.5.4.tar.gz.1 [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ This is a blocker. Please fix it. + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See koji buildlog in the comments above. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + A package owns all directories that it creates. + No files, listed more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + 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 permissible content. + No large documentation files. + Everything, a package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. - Header files must be in a -devel package. Consider creating devel-subpackage for %{_rabbit_erllibdir}/include. Please, note, that in the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package (using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}). + 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 rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Ok, let's summarize things. Required to fix: * Add proper source-file to srpm (md5 must match) * Move headers into devel sub-package * Fix rpmlint warning about missing-lsb-keyword * Exclude INSTALL file from %doc. Should fix (not a blocker - just to your consideration) * Add comments, explaining usage of rabbitmq-script-wrapper. * Discover the issue with build failure on EPEL (I'm sure of importance EPEL branch of rabbitmq-server). These are the last obstacles on our road :) -- 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