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=523799 Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |martin.gieseking@xxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |martin.gieseking@xxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking@xxxxxx> 2009-10-01 16:07:59 EDT --- Here's my review of this small package. It's pretty clean and I couldn't find any major issues to fix. However, I'm not sure if ascii is a valid package name. As far as I understand the naming rules and comments from other reviews, generic terms should not be used as package names. What do you think? - You can simplify the make statement to make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS="${RPM_OPT_FLAGS}" $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-11-x86_64/result/ascii-* ascii.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary ascii ascii.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary ascii 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. If ascii is a proper package name, these warnings can be ignored. --------------------------------- keys used in following checklist: [+] OK [.] OK, not applicable [X] needs work --------------------------------- [X] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. - I'm not sure if ascii is a valid package name because generic terms should be avoided [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license. - source file header refers to file COPYING that contains the GPLv2 license text [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] MUST: file that contains the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. - COPYING 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. $ sha1sum ascii-3.8.tar.gz* c7a513cd52c0fec64491566b5db18fa070639ca4 ascii-3.8.tar.gz c7a513cd52c0fec64491566b5db18fa070639ca4 ascii-3.8.tar.gz.1 [+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1722862 [.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, ... [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. - no explicit BRs necessary [.] 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. - no shared libs [.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ... - 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 docs [+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application. [.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. - no header files [.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. - no static libs [.] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' - no .pc files [.] MUST: 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. - no shared libs [.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - no devel package [.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. - no .la files [.] 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: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. - builds in koji [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. [.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. - no scriptlets [.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. - no subpackages [.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg. - no .pc files -- 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