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=523540 --- Comment #11 from Dominic Hopf <dmaphy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-17 16:41:22 EDT --- First of all, thanks very much to the other guys who also have had a look on this package. I'm very sorry for the delayed feedback from my site. Here's the formal review now. $ rpmlint opentracker.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint opentracker-0-0.4.20090915cvs.fc11.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint opentracker-debuginfo-0-0.4.20090915cvs.fc11.x86_64.rpm opentracker-ipv4-0-0.4.20090915cvs.fc11.x86_64.rpm opentracker-ipv6-0-0.4.20090915cvs.fc11.x86_64.rpm opentracker-ipv4.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/opentracker-ipv4 opentracker-ipv4.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/opentracker-ipv4 opentracker-ipv4.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/opentracker-ipv4 opentracker-ipv6.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/opentracker-ipv6 opentracker-ipv6.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/opentracker-ipv6 opentracker-ipv6.x86_64: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/opentracker-ipv6 $prog opentracker-ipv6.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/opentracker-ipv6 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings. As Matt already wrote before, the statically-linked-binary error can be ignored. I think those warnings are okay too so far. MUSTs ----- OK: packaged is named according to the package naming guidelines OK: specfile name matches %{name}.spec OK: package seems to meet packaging guidelines OK: license in specfile matches actual license and meets licensing guidelines OK: license file is included in %doc Note: there is no separate license file, but a license hint is contained in the README, which actually is included in %doc. OK: specfile is written in AE OK: specfile is legible OK: sourcefile in the package is the same as provided in the mentioned source, Yes, it is. It is not possible to get a fitting md5sum, so I have had a look with meld on an own checkout and the unpacked tarball from the package. There wasn't any diff. OK: package compiles successfully OK: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires N/A: package handles locales properly there are no locales installed with this package N/A: call ldconfig in %post and %postun there is no shared library linked against the installed binary OK: package is not designed to be relocatable OK: package owns directorys it creates OK: does not list a file more than once in the %files listing OK: %files section includes %defattr and permissions are set properly OK: %clean section is there and contains rm -rf %{buildroot} OK: macros are consistently used OK: package contains code N/A: subpackage for large documentation files there are no large documentation files OK: program runs properly without files listed in %doc N/A: header files are in a -devel package there are no header files installed with this package N/A: static libraries are in a -static package there are no static libs installed with this package N/A: require pkgconfig if package contains a pkgconfig(.pc) there is no pkgconfig file N/A: put .so-files into -devel package if there are library files with suffix there is no library with suffix, in fact there isn't any library N/A: devel package includes fully versioned dependency for the base package there is no devel package N/A: any libtool archives are removed there are no libtool archives N/A: contains desktop file if it is a GUI application this is no GUI application OK: package does not own any files or directories owned by other packages OK: buildroot is removed at beginning of %install N/A: filenames are encoded in UTF-8 not necessary since there are no non-ASCII filenames SHOULD ------ N/A: non-English translations for description and summary a localization is not neccessary for this package OK: package builds in mock NOT OK: package builds into binary rpms for all supported architectures does not build for ppc64 OK: program runs N/A: subpackages contain fully versioned dependency for the base package there are no subpackages N/A: pkgconfig file is placed in a devel package there is no pkgconfig file N/A: require package providing a file instead of the file itself no files outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin are required Building the package in koji fails for ppc64 architecture. You can have a look at the concerning build.log here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1751807 I think this is no problem for the packaging procedure at all since this is a SHOULD, but you maybe want to contact upstream regarding this issue. The description is not okay yet. According to http://www.bittorrent.com/ the spelling is "BitTorrent", which is not correct in your description. Also "wlan" is a term which is good known in Germany and maybe some other countrys, but in general I think "Wi-Fi" would be a better term to fit world wide. I would also consider "Wireless LAN" as okay. -- 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