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=526855 --- Comment #11 from Alexey Torkhov <atorkhov@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-10 12:28:33 EDT --- Here is review checklist. A few new problems discovered. + rpmlint output: webacula.src: W: strange-permission webacula_clean_tmp_files 0775 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. + 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. + 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. http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/webacula/webacula-3.3.0.tar.gz Not found. Did you forget to upload release? + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. + If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. - Spec file handles locales properly. It puts locales under /usr/share/webacula/languages while usual place is /usr/share/locale, so you cannot use %find_lang here. You need to specify individual locales with %lang(en), like: %lang(en) %{_datadir}/%{name}/languages/en ... This will also require to specify directories directly: %dir %{_datadir}/%{name} %dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/languages %{_datadir}/%{name}/application ... + Does not store library files. + Package does not contain bundle copies of system libraries. + The package does not designed to be relocatable. + A package owns all directories that it creates. + A 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. I'm suggesting to replace __command macros (%{__rm}, %{__mv}, ...) with their usual equivalents as their usage is unnecessary in Fedora. Not a blocker, though. + The package contains code, or permissable content. + Does not contain large documentation files. + Includes only doc files in %doc. + Noarch package - does not contain libraries. + Does not contain GUI applications. + 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 the package are valid UTF-8. -- 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