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=506681 Matej Cepl <mcepl@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |mcepl@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Matej Cepl <mcepl@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-06-18 08:25:32 EDT --- + GOOD: rpmlint is bradford:rpmbuild$ rpmlint -i SRPMS/autodafe-0.1-1.fc11.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. bradford:rpmbuild$ rpmlint -i RPMS/x86_64/autodafe-* autodafe.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1-1 ['1:0.1-1.fc11', '1:0.1-1'] The last entry in %changelog contains a version identifier that is not coherent with the epoch:version-release tuple of the package. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. bradford:rpmbuild$ silent on both source and binary package. Warning doesn't make any sense to me and should be ignored. + GOOD: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . + GOOD: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. ???: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines . + BAD: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. 1) # -*- coding: utf-8 -*- in the top is not needed ... .spec files are in Fedora UTF-8 per definition. 2) This is not good: mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/share mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/bin make prefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr -C src/adbg install make prefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr -C src/adc install make prefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr -C src/autodafe install make prefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr -C src/pdml2ad install ( cd ./etc/generator; ./generator.sh . ) mv ./etc/generator/autodafe $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/share You should use %{_prefix}, %{_datadir}, %{_bindir}, %{_sysconfdir}, etc. + GOOD: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. - GOOD: LICENSE file is in %doc. + GOOD: The spec file is written in American English. + GOOD: The spec file for the package is legible. + BAD: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. No URL in Source: should be Source: autodafe-%{version}.tar.gz http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz then OK. MD5: 1c10c69080952ab9dd2c819d1e9c044c + GOOD: The package successfully compiles and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Koji scratch build is http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1422739 + GOOD: builds on all architectures + GOOD: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. (builds in koji) + GOOD: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. No locale support. + GOOD: %post and %postun scripts OK no scripts + GOOD: not relocatable + BAD: A package owns all directories that it creates. I don't like this in %files: %{_usr}/share/* a) you should use macros, b) how many directories in %{_datadir} you want? Just write them down in %files individually. The same for %{_bindir}/* This is not safe. + GOOD: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. + GOOD: Permissions on files must be set properly. + GOOD: Each package have a %clean section. + BAD: Each package consistently use macros. see above + GOOD: The package contains code, or permissable content. + BAD: No large documentation files, so no a -doc subpackage. at least tutorials.tar.gz should go to -doc (or to hell ;-)) + GOOD: Files registered in %doc does not affect the runtime of the application. + GOOD: No header files. + GOOD: No static libraries. + GOOD: No pkgconfig(.pc) files. + GOOD: .so file is provided in -devel package. no .so file + GOOD: Correct Requires in -devel subpackage. no -devel package + GOOD: No .la libtool archives. + GOOD: Packages does not contain GUI applications. + GOOD: Packages does not own files or directories owned by other packages. + GOOD: Runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install + GOOD: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. + GOOD: Includes license text. NOT APPROVED Please fix the above shown problems. -- 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