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=492583 --- Comment #4 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2009-05-20 14:23:32 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > This doesn't seem to me to be a pidgin plugin, more like a purple plugin. Thus > the name should be purple-gfire and BuildRequires: libpurple-devel. Hmm, I no longer agree with myself :D This is after all a pidgin plugin, at least the home page clearly says so. So the name should be after all pidgin-xfire. Sorry for the hassle. Now: - You should Requires: libpurple explicitly for dir ownership, even though this should be automatically picked up by rpm as a lib dependency. Also, please make a comment about the dir ownership section of Requires, so that you/other people will not remove it without knowing why it's there. - Please don't use macros when not necessary (%{__chmod} is just chmod). - Change %{_datadir}/purple/%{srcname}/* %{_datadir}/purple/%{srcname}/scripts/server_detection/* to %{_datadir}/purple/%{srcname}/ as this will own the directory (necessary) and everything in it. Now the package doesn't own the directory /usr/share/purple/gfire and you are listing stuff twice: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/purple/gfire/scripts/server_detection/4097.py warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/purple/gfire/scripts/server_detection/4097.pyc warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/purple/gfire/scripts/server_detection/4097.pyo warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/purple/gfire/scripts/server_detection/tools - You can fit the make install -stuff into one line. - Description uses some odd characters. ’ should be ' and ” should be ". - License is GPLv3+ not GPLv2+. - BR: libpurple-devel is redundant, it's already pulled in by pidgin-devel. So is glib2-devel, which is pulled in by pidgin-devel -> gtk2-devel. - What is the line sed -i -e '/#\!/d' %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/purple/%{srcname}/scripts/server_detection/4097.py for? I assume it removes a shebang in the python file. Please, add a comment! *** rpmlint output is clean. MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. NEEDSWORK - Don't use %{__chmod} for chmod. MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. NEEDSWORK - Should be named pidgin-xfire (yes, my mistake) :) MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK - Remember to rename this back too. 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. NEEDSFIX - License is GPLv3+ not GPLv2+. 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. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. NEEDSWORK - Should Requires: libpurple explicitly. MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. NEEDSWORK - Use %{_datadir}/purple/%{srcname}/ to own everything you should. MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. 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: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A 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: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK -- 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