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=505374 --- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2009-06-11 15:54:38 EDT --- - nilfs_cleanerd links against libnilfs.so.0 so the libraries should go in %{_lib} as for other packages of this type. rpmlint output: nilfs-utils.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/lssu ['/usr/lib64'] nilfs-utils.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/mkcp ['/usr/lib64'] nilfs-utils.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/rmcp ['/usr/lib64'] nilfs-utils.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /sbin/nilfs_cleanerd ['/usr/lib64'] nilfs-utils.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/lscp ['/usr/lib64'] nilfs-utils.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/dumpseg ['/usr/lib64'] nilfs-utils.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/chcp ['/usr/lib64'] nilfs-utils.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libnilfs.so nilfs-utils.x86_64: E: setuid-binary /sbin/mkfs.nilfs2 root 04755 nilfs-utils.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /sbin/mkfs.nilfs2 04755 nilfs-utils.x86_64: E: setuid-binary /sbin/nilfs_cleanerd root 04755 nilfs-utils.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /sbin/nilfs_cleanerd 04755 nilfs-utils.x86_64: E: setuid-binary /sbin/mount.nilfs2 root 04755 nilfs-utils.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /sbin/mount.nilfs2 04755 nilfs-utils.x86_64: E: setuid-binary /sbin/umount.nilfs2 root 04755 nilfs-utils.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /sbin/umount.nilfs2 04755 nilfs-utils.x86_64: W: one-line-command-in-%post /sbin/ldconfig nilfs-utils.x86_64: W: one-line-command-in-%postun /sbin/ldconfig nilfs-utils-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 15 errors, 4 warnings. - Get rid of rpath. - The .so file goes in -devel. - Are the permissions as wanted? I have to check other file system tools. - Use %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. ~OK - I'd use a macro for /sbin, say %global _sbin /sbin 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. NEEDSWORK 2e056e7979ed77727a7798d79de5188f nilfs-utils-2.0.12.tar.bz2 6819db4b59f9504abe68ebc7818fd6ae ../SOURCES/nilfs-utils-2.0.12.tar.bz2 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, make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="install -p" should do the trick. MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK - See comments on rpmlint warnings. 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. OK - You might want to add [ -s AUTHORS ] && exit 1 [ -s NEWS ] && exit 1 [ -s README ] && exit 1 to the %setup phase so you get notified if these acquire content. MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK 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. NEEDSWORK MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK - You might use just Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} to be clearer. MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK 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