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=476435 --- Comment #13 from Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-18 05:54:49 EDT --- An initial review. Mostly looks good. Just some rpmlint bits to cleanup as you previously mentioned. + rpmlint output rpmlint sugar-record-64-1.fc11.src.rpm sugar-record-64-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm sugar-record.spec sugar-record.src: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities sugar-record.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities sugar-record.x86_64: E: no-binary sugar-record.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/gst/gstvideorate.h sugar-record.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/gst/gstvalve.c sugar-record.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/gst/gstvalve.h sugar-record.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/gst/ChangeLog sugar-record.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/gst/NEWS sugar-record.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/gst/README sugar-record.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/gst/AUTHORS sugar-record.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/gst/gstvideorate.c sugar-record.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/camerac/camera.c sugar-record.spec:6: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 8 warnings. For the zero length doc files just remove them. + package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines + specfile name matches the package base name + package should satisfy packaging guidelines + license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora + license matches the actual package license + %doc includes license file + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + upstream sources match sources in the srpm 920060cf3238d457691de659c12c25b2edc5fca2 Record-64.tar.bz2 + package successfully builds on at least one architecture tested using koji scratch build + BuildRequires list all build dependencies + %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun+ does not use Prefix: /usr + package owns all directories it creates + no duplicate files in %files + %defattr line + %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + consistent use of macros + package must contain code or permissible content n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + files marked %doc should not affect package ? header files should be in -devel n/a static libraries should be in -static n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel n/a devel must require the fully versioned base + packages should not contain libtool .la files n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages + %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc. + filenames must be valid UTF-8 Optional: + if there is no license file, packager should query upstream n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available + reviewer should build the package in mock/koji n/a the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures n/a review should test the package functions as described + scriptlets should be sane n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel + shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin -- 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