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=461849 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #7 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-08-19 09:48:11 EDT --- Brian, I'm sorry for shameless breaking of your review process, but it seems, that you forgot about this ticket :) REVIEW: - rpmlint is not silent (I added custom message numbering for the sake of simplicity) [petro@Sulaco SPECS]$ rpmlint ~/Desktop/garmintools- 1. garmintools.ppc: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libgarmintools.so.4.2.0 exit@xxxxxxxxx 2. garmintools.ppc: E: postin-without-ldconfig /usr/lib/libgarmintools.so.4.2.0 3. garmintools.ppc: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/libgarmintools.so.4.2.0 4. garmintools.ppc: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libgarmintools.so 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings. [petro@Sulaco SPECS]$ The 1st message is indicated a possible design flaw in garmintools. You should consider asking upstream about it. The 2nd and the 3rd messaged should be fixed. Please remove "devel" from the %post and %postun sections (looks like the leftover), and be careful - don't forget the %post section which contains "rmmod garmin_gps &>/dev/null || true" The 4th message should be fixed - you accidentally listed file %{_libdir}/libgarmintools.so twice - in main package and in devel-subpackage. I advise you to change in %files section this line %{_libdir}/lib*.so* to that one: %{_libdir}/lib*.so.* + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec . - The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines, but there is an issue, in the %files section, with owned directories which are already owned by other applications. See my note below. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines . + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ sha256sum garmintools-0.10.tar.gz* ffd50b7f963fa9b8ded3223c4786b07906c887ed900de64581a24ff201444cee garmintools-0.10.tar.gz ffd50b7f963fa9b8ded3223c4786b07906c887ed900de64581a24ff201444cee garmintools-0.10.tar.gz.1 [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1614626 + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. - 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. See my notes, regarding rpmlint messages above. + The package owns all directories that it creates (none, actually). - A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. See my notes, regarding rpmlint messages above. + Permissions on files were set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. + Everything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + Header files are in a -devel package. + No static libraries. - If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. See my notes, regarding rpmlint messages above. + The devel subpackage requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. - The package must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. Unfortunately, main package owns /etc/udev/rules.d and /etc/modprobe.d Please use the correct form (note the asterisk mark at the end of the strings)): %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/udev/rules.d/* %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/modprobe.d/* + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm package are valid UTF-8. Please, fix issues noted 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