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=511941 Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #11 from Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-19 07:15:32 EDT --- A couple of things. The main one is the documentation on how to recreate the source file. Also the description could be fleshed out a little, a Data Storage Daemon for what? The description in the review request isn't too bad at least explains its for storing cloud data. + rpmlint output: OK rpmlint chunkd-*.rpm chunkd.spec chunkd.x86_64: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/chunkd $prog chunkd-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. + 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 needs to update to the revision control packaging guidelines https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control + package successfully builds on at least one architecture tested using koji scratch build, if there is an upstream bug report for the PPC issues might be good to reference it. + BuildRequires list all build dependencies n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* + 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 %{buildroot} + 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 + packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' + libfoo.so must go in -devel + 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: n/a 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 + 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 + 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