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=514065 --- Comment #4 from Dominic Hopf <dmaphy@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-31 17:05:25 EDT --- $ rpmlint trac-tracnav-plugin-4.1-2.fc11.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint trac-tracnav-plugin-4.1-2.fc11.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. MUSTs ----- OK: packaged is named according to the package naming guidelines OK: specfile name matches %{name}.spec OK: package seems to meet packaging guidelines OK: license in specfile matches actual license and meets licensing guidelines OK: license file is included in %doc OK: specfile is written in AE OK: specfile is legible OK: sourcefile in the package is the same as provided in the mentioned source, md5sum fits OK: package compiles successfully OK: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires N/A: package handles locales properly there are no locales installed with this package N/A: call ldconfig in %post and %postun there is no binary installed with this package OK: package is not designed to be relocatable OK: package owns directorys it creates OK: does not list a file more than once in the %files listing OK: %files section includes %defattr and permissions are set properly OK: %clean section is there and contains rm -rf %{buildroot} OK: macros are consistently used OK: package contains code N/A: subpackage for large documentation files there are no large documentation files OK: program runs properly without files listed in %doc N/A: header files are in a -devel package there are no header files N/A: static libraries are in a -static package there are no static libs N/A: require pkgconfig if package contains a pkgconfig(.pc) there is no pkgconfig file N/A: put .so-files into -devel package if there are library files with suffix there is no library with suffix, in fact there isn't any library N/A: devel package includes fully versioned dependency for the base package there is no devel package N/A: any libtool archives are removed there are no libtool archives N/A: contains desktop file if it is a GUI application I assume this program will be called via webinterface, this may is a GUI, but I think a desktop file is not necessary for this kind of GUI OK: package does not own any files or directories owned by other packages OK: buildroot is removed at beginning of %install N/A: filenames are encoded in UTF-8 not necessary since there are no non-ASCII filenames SHOULD ------ N/A: non-English translations for description and summary there are no other languages supported by this package, in fact it does not provide any localization. I assume localizations are not needed for this package. OK: package builds in mock N/A: package builds into binary rpms for all supported architectures this is a noarch package N/A: program runs I did not test myself if the program works as it should since I do not have installed trac and don't use it N/A: subpackages contain fully versioned dependency for the base package there are no subpackages N/A: pkgconfig file is placed in a devel package there is no pkgconfig file N/A: require package providing a file instead of the file itself no files outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin are required (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > Try to bail out the 80 chars in the description. > > If you insist, but normally I have emacs' fill-column set to 70 (the default, > as far as I know). I do not insist on that. I think it is also okay to have 70 chars per line, even if I would prefer 80 and rpmlint allows until 79 chars per line. It's not worth changing your emacs settings at all. > > I don't like the %{python_sitelib}/* construct in the %files section > > Unless there's a guideline that forces me to do so, I'd prefer not to list > individual files or directories here, because removing redundancy makes > maintaining the package much easier. Since there is no guideline about this - at least no guideline I know - there unfortunately doesn't seem to be any way to force you to write the %file list more human readable. ;) APPROVED. -- 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