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=510428 --- Comment #5 from Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-10 23:26:57 EDT --- hi, (In reply to comment #4) > Here is the review: > > +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing > > MUST Items: > [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. > [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} > [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [FIXME?: covers this > list and more] > [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet > the Licensing Guidelines. > [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual > license. > [-] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the > license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the > license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. > File COPYING must be included. Included.. I had missed it somehow.. > [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. > [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. > [=] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, > as provided in the spec URL. > Source matched: > $ md5sum axel-2.4.tar.gz > a2a762fce0c96781965c8f9786a3d09d axel-2.4.tar.gz > > Consider use %{version} in Source URL - > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Using_.25.7Bversion.7D > Corrected.. > [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on > at least one supported architecture. > [+] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an > architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in > ExcludeArch. > Package compiled. > [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires > [+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the > %find_lang macro. > [+] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just > symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in > %post and %postun. > No shared libraries. > [+] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state > this fact in the request for review > Package is not relocatable. > [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not > create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does > create that directory. > [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. > [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set > with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a > %defattr(...) line. > [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf > %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). > [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros > section of Packaging Guidelines. > [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is > described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. > [+] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage. > [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the > runtime of the application. > [+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. > [+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. > No static libraries. > [+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' > (for directory ownership and usability). > Have not pkgconfig(.pc) files. > [+] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. > libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in > a -devel package. > Have not. > [+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base > package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = > %{version}-%{release} > [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be > removed in the spec. > [+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop > file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the > %install section. > Only cli. > [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other > packages. > [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf > %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). > [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. > > SHOULD Items: > [=] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a > separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > Source include it, but package does not (see above). Corrected. > [+] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file > should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. > No translations in spec. > [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. > [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all > supported architectures. > Done: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1466319 > [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. > A'm test it before and even try using... (wget more convenient :) , IMHO) > [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. > Scriplets haven't used. > [+] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base > package using a fully versioned dependency. > [+] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and > this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. > A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not > installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. > [+] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, > /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file > instead of the file itself. > No such dependencies. > [+] SHOULD: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed > files. Spec and srpm : http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/axel/axel.spec http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/axel/axel-2.4-1.fc10.src.rpm Other files from mock build can be found at : http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/axel/ regards, Ankur Sinha -- 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