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=529016 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> 2009-10-16 13:20:31 EDT --- Guido, the package is pretty clean. You should just remove the duplicate license.txt from devel. It's sufficient to add it to the base package. $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-11-x86_64/result/yaml-cpp-* 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. --------------------------------- keys used in following checklist: [+] OK [.] OK, not applicable [X] needs work --------------------------------- [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] 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. - MIT (modern style with sublicense) according to license.txt [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %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 yaml-cpp-0.2.2.tar.gz* b239e50fed91a11ada843646622df84c69fea297 yaml-cpp-0.2.2.tar.gz b239e50fed91a11ada843646622df84c69fea297 yaml-cpp-0.2.2.tar.gz.1 [+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1750413 [.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work ... [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. [.] 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. [.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ... - not relocatable [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [X] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. - remove license.txt from %doc of devel package [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}. [+] 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: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. - no static libs built [+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' [+] 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. [+] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. .la files removed [.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. - 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}. [+] 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. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. - seems to work as expected [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [+] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg. -- 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