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=500074 Bastien Nocera <bnocera@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bnocera@xxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |bnocera@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #4 from Bastien Nocera <bnocera@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-05-11 09:29:05 EDT --- REVIEW: - rpmlint is not silent: libplist-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libplist-python.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/python/site-packages/libplist/_PList.so libplist-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation I guess the "no-documentation" ones can be ignored. You should also use the python_sitelib macro, as the module should live in /usr/lib64/python2.5/... + 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 must matches the actual license. + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. For the sub-packages, I'd rather have: Development files for %{name}, <insert short description>. Similar for the python sub-package. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source: $ sha1sum libplist-0.12.tar.bz2 ../SOURCES/libplist-0.12.tar.bz2 bdcaff582eaf82910df580631cd1a07f22b351ca libplist-0.12.tar.bz2 bdcaff582eaf82910df580631cd1a07f22b351ca ../SOURCES/libplist-0.12.tar.bz2 + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture (see koji log above). + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + The package does not list a file 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 permissable content. + No large documentation files. + Everything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + Header files are in a -devel package. + No static libraries. + The library files that ends in .so (without suffix) are in a -devel package. + 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. + Not a GUI application. + 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 must be valid UTF-8. I think the -python sub-package is missing a python requires. Rest looks good. -- 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