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=484386 --- Comment #9 from D Haley <mycae@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-12 01:16:02 EDT --- SPEC URL: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/gri-3.spec SRPM URL: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/gri-2.12.18-3.fc10.src.rpm Koji builds: F10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1468583 F11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1468584 RPMLint: ====== $ rpmlint -i gri.spec ../SRPMS/gri-2.12.18-3.fc10.src.rpm ../RPMS/i386/gri-*3.fc10* ../RPMS/i386/*-gri*3.fc10* && sudo rpm -e gri && sudo rpm -i ../RPMS/i386/gri-2.12.18-3.fc10.i386.rpm && rpmlint gri emacs-gri.i386: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. emacs-gri-el.i386: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. xemacs-gri.i386: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. xemacs-gri-el.i386: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. 7 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. [sudo] password for makerpm: ^[[A^[[A^[[B1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. ====== >Well, for some definition of "soon". I don't think we are on a tight schedule :) >Your manual Requires: readline should be unnecessary. rpm correctly finds the >dependency on libreadline. Fixed >I note you're not using the %dist tag on this pacakge. It's not mandatory, but >I do need to ask if you understand the issues that occur when you don't use it >and the procedure for making sure that you keep proper ordering between release >branches. This was the out-of-date spec bit. I must have forgotten to rebuild before uploading. Anyway, this is therefore no longer an issue. >The package includes a test suite in doc/tst_suite; is there any reason not to run it in a %check section? Their test suite doesn't actually have any kind of test target, in contradiction to what is stated in the manual (http://gri.sourceforge.net/gridoc/html/TestSuite.html). The manual says one exists and can be invoked with "make test", but make test is not a valid target for any makefile. There is no clear way to verify the functioning of their test suite in an automated fashion, AFAIK. $ for i in `find ./ -name Makefile`; do pushd . ; cd $(dirname $i); make test; popd; done ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 make: *** No rule to make target `test'. Stop. ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 make: *** No rule to make target `test'. Stop. ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 make: *** No rule to make target `test'. Stop. ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 make: *** No rule to make target `test'. Stop. ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 make: *** No rule to make target `test'. Stop. ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 make: *** No rule to make target `test'. Stop. ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 make: *** No rule to make target `test'. Stop. ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 make: *** No rule to make target `test'. Stop. ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 make: *** No rule to make target `test'. Stop. ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 > gri.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs Fixed. > This package in general seems to be a bit lax about the license version in use. Submitted upstream as a bug (https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=2820229&group_id=5511&atid=105511) Actually I am going to revert the package licence back to GPLv2. The licence on their site, and in their docs is GPLv2. (http://gri.sourceforge.net/gridoc/html/License.html and doc/gri.texi) GPLv2+ gives you the option of using a later version, or GPLv2. Therefore, mixing this with the GPLv2+ el files, means that the package as a whole must be distributed under 2 only, as far as I can see. >Your scriptlets should conform to >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Texinfo unless you >have some reason why that doesn't work. Fixed. -- 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