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=225714 --- Comment #7 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2009-07-17 08:43:31 EDT --- - %setup argument -n e2fsprogs-%{version} is not necessary. - Actually, whole rpmlint output is: e2fsprogs.src: W: strange-permission uuidd.init 0755 e2fsprogs.src:20: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes e4fsprogs e2fsprogs.src:21: W: unversioned-explicit-provides e4fsprogs e2fsprogs-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation libcom_err.x86_64: W: no-documentation libss.x86_64: W: no-documentation libuuid.x86_64: W: no-documentation uuidd.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /usr/sbin/uuidd uuidd uuidd.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /usr/sbin/uuidd uuidd uuidd.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/libuuid uuidd uuidd.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/libuuid uuidd uuidd.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/libuuid 02775 12 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 11 warnings. You could add at least COPYING to the lib* and uuidd packages. - You are explicitly referring to /etc/rc.d/init.d/uuidd in the %files of uuidd, I suggest using the %{_initrddir} macro. ** MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. NEEDSWORK - Mixing of %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT which is not allowed. 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. OK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK 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. OK MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. NEEDSWORK - Missing COPYING. - I suggest placing MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. NEEDSWORK - See comment #6. MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. NEEDSWORK - Devel needs to Requires: pkgconfig. MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. OK MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK 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. 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 the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review