[Bug 505184] Review Request: xorriso - ISO 9660 image manipulation tool

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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=505184





--- Comment #5 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx>  2009-06-11 08:36:32 EDT ---
rpmlint output:
xorriso.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/pkgconfig/xorriso.pc
xorriso.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/xorriso-0.3.8/CONTRIBUTORS
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.

- I have no idea why a pkgconfig file is provided, usually they're only used in
development packages such as libraries.

- Drop the CONTRIBUTORS file and add
 [ -s CONTRIBUTORS ] && exit 1
to %setup so that you will be notified if the file gains content later on.


MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a
duplicate. OK
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.
NEEDSWORK
- Change
 Release: 1%{?dist}
to
 Release: 1.%{__patchlevel}%{?dist}

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.
NEEDSWORK
- License is GPLv2 and GPL+ and (LGPLv2+ or MIT), not GPLv2.
* Most of the files are under GPLv2.
* cleanup is under GPL license (GPL+)
* make_isohybrid_mr is LGPLv2+ or MIT.

MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. NEEDSWORK
- No source URL provided. Source matches upstream.

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. NEEDSWORK
- Time stamps are not preserved, use
 make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="install -p"

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. N/A
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. 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'.
NEEDSWORK
- Add Requires: pkgconfig.

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. NEEDSWORK
- Not all licenses are included.

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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]