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=501017 Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-09-01 16:18:09 EDT --- ? rpmlint output rpmlint libtnc.spec libtnc-1.19-1.fc11.src.rpm libtnc-1.19-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm libtnc-devel-1.19-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm libtnc-debuginfo-1.19-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm libtnc.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libosc_imv.so.0.0.0 exit@xxxxxxxxxxx 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 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 ? should package the latest version there's a version 1.22 out on the site + %doc includes license file + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + upstream sources match sources in the srpm 4150bb183a9b6aa0af0f48359b024912 libtnc-1.19.tar.gz + package successfully builds on at least one architecture tested using koji scratch build + 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 n/a package owns all directories it creates n/a no duplicate files in %files ? Package perserves timestamps on install + %defattr line + %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + 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 n/a 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: + 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 n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel + shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin Issues: - rpmlint output - I don't believe that its a problem. - there's a newer version 1.22 upstream - not sure if the lovely autotools preserves timestamps. Possibly use: make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install INSTALL='install -p' https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps I don't see any of the above issues as blockers. 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