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=527250 Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-05 11:15:29 EDT --- * MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. [jwboyer@hansolo rpm]$ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/dumpet-1.1-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [jwboyer@hansolo rpm]$ rpmlint SRPMS/dumpet-1.1-1.fc11.src.rpm dumpet.src: W: no-buildroot-tag dumpet.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 9) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [jwboyer@hansolo rpm]$ rpmlint SPECS/dumpet.spec SPECS/dumpet.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag SPECS/dumpet.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 9) 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [jwboyer@hansolo rpm]$ * MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [OK] * MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [OK] * MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines [OK] * MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines [OK] * MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [OK] * MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.[OK] * MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [OK] * MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [OK] * MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [OK] [jwboyer@hansolo SOURCES]$ sha1sum dumpet-1.1.tar.bz2.srpm b43e4ab6cb1390079b12b796ab10252cc86b52db dumpet-1.1.tar.bz2.srpm [jwboyer@hansolo SOURCES]$ sha1sum dumpet-1.1.tar.bz2 b43e4ab6cb1390079b12b796ab10252cc86b52db dumpet-1.1.tar.bz2 [jwboyer@hansolo SOURCES]$ * MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [OK, built on x86_64] [jwboyer@hansolo rpm]$ rpmbuild -ba SPECS/dumpet.spec Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.w8psgg + umask 022 + cd /home/jwboyer/rpm/BUILD + LANG=C + export LANG + unset DISPLAY + cd /home/jwboyer/rpm/BUILD + rm -rf dumpet-1.1 + /usr/bin/bzip2 -dc /home/jwboyer/rpm/SOURCES/dumpet-1.1.tar.bz2 + /bin/tar -xf - + STATUS=0 + '[' 0 -ne 0 ']' + cd dumpet-1.1 + /bin/chmod -Rf a+rX,u+w,g-w,o-w . + exit 0 Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.HH87ii + umask 022 + cd /home/jwboyer/rpm/BUILD + cd dumpet-1.1 + LANG=C + export LANG + unset DISPLAY + make -j2 'CFLAGS=-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic' cc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -c -o dumpet.o dumpet.c dumpet.c: In function 'dumpBootImage': dumpet.c:227: warning: ignoring return value of 'asprintf', declared with attribute warn_unused_result cc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -o dumpet dumpet.o -lpopt + exit 0 Executing(%install): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.alsxes + umask 022 + cd /home/jwboyer/rpm/BUILD + '[' /home/jwboyer/rpm/BUILDROOT/dumpet-1.1-1.fc11.x86_64 '!=' / ']' + rm -rf /home/jwboyer/rpm/BUILDROOT/dumpet-1.1-1.fc11.x86_64 ++ dirname /home/jwboyer/rpm/BUILDROOT/dumpet-1.1-1.fc11.x86_64 + mkdir -p /home/jwboyer/rpm/BUILDROOT + mkdir /home/jwboyer/rpm/BUILDROOT/dumpet-1.1-1.fc11.x86_64 + cd dumpet-1.1 + LANG=C + export LANG + unset DISPLAY + rm -rf /home/jwboyer/rpm/BUILDROOT/dumpet-1.1-1.fc11.x86_64 + mkdir -p /home/jwboyer/rpm/BUILDROOT/dumpet-1.1-1.fc11.x86_64//usr/bin + make DESTDIR=/home/jwboyer/rpm/BUILDROOT/dumpet-1.1-1.fc11.x86_64 install install -m 0755 dumpet /home/jwboyer/rpm/BUILDROOT/dumpet-1.1-1.fc11.x86_64/usr/bin/dumpet + /usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh --strict-build-id /home/jwboyer/rpm/BUILD/dumpet-1.1 extracting debug info from /home/jwboyer/rpm/BUILDROOT/dumpet-1.1-1.fc11.x86_64/usr/bin/dumpet 47 blocks + /usr/lib/rpm/check-buildroot + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-compress + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-strip-static-archive /usr/bin/strip + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-strip-comment-note /usr/bin/strip /usr/bin/objdump + /usr/lib/rpm/brp-python-bytecompile + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-python-hardlink + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-java-repack-jars Processing files: dumpet-1.1-1.fc11.x86_64 Executing(%doc): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.xZVG2E + umask 022 + cd /home/jwboyer/rpm/BUILD + cd dumpet-1.1 + DOCDIR=/home/jwboyer/rpm/BUILDROOT/dumpet-1.1-1.fc11.x86_64/usr/share/doc/dumpet-1.1 + export DOCDIR + rm -rf /home/jwboyer/rpm/BUILDROOT/dumpet-1.1-1.fc11.x86_64/usr/share/doc/dumpet-1.1 + /bin/mkdir -p /home/jwboyer/rpm/BUILDROOT/dumpet-1.1-1.fc11.x86_64/usr/share/doc/dumpet-1.1 + cp -pr README TODO COPYING /home/jwboyer/rpm/BUILDROOT/dumpet-1.1-1.fc11.x86_64/usr/share/doc/dumpet-1.1 + exit 0 Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 Requires: libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.8)(64bit) libpopt.so.0()(64bit) libpopt.so.0(LIBPOPT_0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Processing files: dumpet-debuginfo-1.1-1.fc11.x86_64 Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /home/jwboyer/rpm/BUILDROOT/dumpet-1.1-1.fc11.x86_64 Wrote: /home/jwboyer/rpm/SRPMS/dumpet-1.1-1.fc11.src.rpm Wrote: /home/jwboyer/rpm/RPMS/x86_64/dumpet-1.1-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm Wrote: /home/jwboyer/rpm/RPMS/x86_64/dumpet-debuginfo-1.1-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm Executing(%clean): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.V16tGw + umask 022 + cd /home/jwboyer/rpm/BUILD + cd dumpet-1.1 + rm -rf /home/jwboyer/rpm/BUILDROOT/dumpet-1.1-1.fc11.x86_64 + exit 0 [jwboyer@hansolo rpm]$ * MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. [OK] * MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[OK] * MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [OK] * MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [OK] * MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [OK] * MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [OK] * MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [OK] * MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [OK] * MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [OK] * MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [OK] * MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [OK] 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