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=527231 --- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-07 06:09:04 EDT --- REVIEW: + rpmlint is silent [petro@Sulaco SPECS]$ rpmlint ~/fuse/sshfs/work/Desktop/couchdb-glib-* couchdb-glib-devel.ppc: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [petro@Sulaco SPECS]$ + 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 meets the Packaging Guidelines . + 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. ftp://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/sources/couchdb-glib/0.5/couchdb-glib-0.5.0.sha256sum 0e04edd440706f031b952011b8a12f99d9a13b356f2a2abf778ada786e4540ae couchdb-glib-0.5.0.tar.bz2 + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture (see koji logs above). + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + The package calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are 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, a package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + Header files are in a -devel package. + Since the package contains pkgconfig(.pc) files, it 'Requires: pkgconfig'. + A library files that ends in .so (without suffix) are in a -devel package. + The devel sub-package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. BTW ver. 0.5.1 is out, while you packaged 0.5.0. -- 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