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=513754 --- Comment #6 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2009-07-28 17:08:26 EDT --- Note the errors in %build + make -j4 make: execvp: git: Permission denied make: Nothing to be done for `all'. and in %install + make install DESTDIR=/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/moblin-session-0.12-2.fc11.x86_64 make: execvp: git: Permission denied however the makefile doesn't seem to use these for anything. In fact, the only thing the makefile does is it installs three files, so I suggest the following: %prep %setup -q %build # Nothing is built %install rm -rf %{buildroot} install -D -p -m 755 moblin-xinitrc %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/xdg/moblin/xninitrc install -D -p -m 755 startmoblin %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/startmoblin desktop-file-install --dir=%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications moblin.desktop %files %defattr(-,root,root,-) %doc COPYING %{_sysconfdir}/xdg/moblin/ %{_bindir}/startmoblin %{_datadir}/xsessions/moblin.desktop (You need to add BR: desktop-file-utils.) ** rpmlint output is clean. MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. OK - Instead of %attr(0755,root,root) in %files I recommend adding chmod 755 %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/xdg/moblin/xinitrc at the end of %install. 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 - startmoblin declares itself to be GPLv2 only, the other files don't contain a license. The attached COPYING is GPLv2, which should apply to everything. 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. N/A MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. NEEDSWORK - Time stamps are not preserved, please use method above. MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A 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. N/A MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK MUST: Clean section exists. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. NEEDSWORK - Desktop file not installed properly. Please use method given above. 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 ** Gareth: you missed the desktop file install part. (The time stamp issue is minor, but still one should keep them.) ** This package seems rather trivial; I wonder why it has not been merged with some other core moblin stuff by upstream... -- 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