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=497948 Ant Bryan <anthonybryan@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Ant Bryan <anthonybryan@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-05-25 14:20:45 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > rpmlint output: > mulk-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm > /usr/src/debug/mulk-0.4.1/src/uri_parser.c > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. > > - Fix this in setup phase. Thanks, I had not been using rpmlint on debuginfo packages. rpmlint mulk-0.4.1-2.fc10.i386.rpm mulk-debuginfo-0.4.1-2.fc10.i386.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used > consistently. 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: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. > 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. 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. OK > MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK > 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. N/A > > MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect > runtime of application. NEEDSWORK > - Add THANKS and TODO. Done! > 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 > > > Fix the above before import to CVS. The package has been > > APPROVED Thanks for your time and help, Jussi! I think the package upstream has been improved and your comments will make it easier for mulk to be packaged elsewhere too! New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: mulk Short Description: Multi-connection network downloader with Metalink support Owners: ant Branches: F-9 F-10 F-11 InitialCC: -- 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