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=509445 Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |martin.gieseking@xxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #9 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking@xxxxxx> 2009-08-07 05:33:41 EDT --- Hello Praveen, here is my review of your package. :) rpmlint output: sblim-cmpi-rpm.i586: E: devel-dependency rpm-devel sblim-cmpi-rpm.i586: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog .0.1-3 ['1.0.1-3.fc11', '1.0.1-3'] sblim-cmpi-rpm.i586: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/libcimrpm.so.0.0.0 sblim-cmpi-rpm.i586: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/libcimrpm.so.0.0.0 sblim-cmpi-rpm.i586: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/libcimrpmv4.so.0.0.0 sblim-cmpi-rpm.i586: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/libcimrpmv4.so.0.0.0 sblim-cmpi-rpm-devel.i586: W: no-dependency-on sblim-cmpi-rpm/sblim-cmpi-rpm-libs/libsblim-cmpi-rpm sblim-cmpi-rpm-devel.i586: W: summary-not-capitalized devel files for sblim-cmpi-rpm 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 3 warnings. - Add a changelog entry for *every* revision so that the revision history can be reproduced (revision number is 3 now, so there must be 3 changelog entries, newest first) - It wasn't necessary to shorten the description. The lines were just longer than 80 characters. Split long descriptions to several lines. --------------------------------- keys used in following checklist: [+] OK [#] OK, not applicable [-] needs work --------------------------------- [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [-] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. - see rpmlint output [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] MUST: license file added to %doc [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [-] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. - md5 hashes are different - please use the latest orignal tarball from upstream [+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [#] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. - no locales [-] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. - add %post and %postun scriptlets - see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries [#] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable,... - package not relocatable [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [#] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. - no large documentation [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [-] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. - run configure with --disable-static to disable build of static libraries - see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries [#] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. - no pkgconfig files [+] MUST: .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [-] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - add Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} to the -devel package [-] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. - remove the .la files in the %install section and remove them from %files devel [#] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file - no GUI [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. - builds in mock [-] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. - no scriptlets - add %post and %postun (see above) -- 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