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=522979 --- Comment #1 from Tim Niemueller <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-09-21 17:47:22 EDT --- MUST * OK: rpmlint # rpmlint lua-lunit.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # rpmlint lua-lunit-0.4-1.fc11.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # rpmlint lua-lunit-0.4-1.fc11.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. * OK: package name * OK: package version and release * OK: spec file name * OP: package guideline-compliant * OK: license complies with guidelines * OK: license field accurate * OK: license file not deleted * OK: spec in US English * OK: spec legible * OK: source matches upstream sha256sum 09efe9f35132353c6810c57367cba29659afc7348ff593c529cbee1831d66d7a * OK: builds under >= 1 archs, others excluded * OK: dependencies (requires) * FAIL: build dependencies complete lua >= %{luaver} should be in BR for %check to work. The lua package actually is pulled in (cf. root.log from scratch build below), but this is only intermediate, should be included directly as BR. * N/A: locales handled using %find_lang, no %{_datadir}/locale * N/A: library -> ldconfig * N/A: relocatable: give reason * N/A: own all directories * OK: no dupes in %files * OK: permission * OK: %clean RPM_BUILD_ROOT * FAIL: macros used consistently Most of the time you use %{dir} macros, but then you use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, should be %{buildroot} * OK: Package contains code * N/A: large docs => -doc * OK: doc not runtime dependent * N/A: headers in -devel * N/A: static in -static * N/A: if contains *.pc, req pkgconfig * N/A: if libfiles are suffixed, the non-suffixed goes to devel * N/A: devel requires versioned base package * N/A: desktop file uses desktop-file-install * OK: clean buildroot before install * OK: filenames UTF-8 SHOULD * OK: if license text missing, ask upstream to include it * N/A: desc and summary contain translations if available * OK: package builds in mock on all architectures https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1695926 * OK: package functions as described # lunit /usr/share/doc/lua-lunit-0.4/example.lua Loaded testsuite with 4 tests in 2 testcases. F... 6 Assertions checked. 1) Failure (simple.test_failure): /usr/share/doc/lua-lunit-0.4/example.lua:13: true expected but was false /usr/share/doc/lua-lunit-0.4/example.lua:13: This test always fails! Testsuite finished (3 passed, 1 failed, 0 errors). * OK: scriplets are sane If %check fails, you should cat testlog.txt such that the user knows what happened. * N/A: other subpackages should require versioned base * N/A: if main pkg is development-wise, pkgconfig can go in main package * N/A: require package not files Question: Is the koji scratch build enough to assert "package builds in mock on all architectures"? Preventing approval: - BR lua missing - Inconsistent macro usage (I know that's debatable, but the guidelines state that you should stick to one type or the other) Both are only minor, but for the first review I must be pedantic, right ;-) -- 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