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=485652 --- Comment #54 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-18 06:47:44 EDT --- Koji scratchbuild for F-11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1752756 Ok, here is my REVIEW: + rpmlint is almost silent: [petro@Sulaco Desktop]$ ls navit-* navit-0.1.2-0.2.20090918svn2578.fc11.ppc.rpm navit-debuginfo-0.1.2-0.2.20090918svn2578.fc11.ppc.rpm navit-graphics-qt-0.1.2-0.2.20090918svn2578.fc11.ppc.rpm navit-graphics-sdl-0.1.2-0.2.20090918svn2578.fc11.ppc.rpm [petro@Sulaco Desktop]$ rpmlint navit-* navit-graphics-qt.ppc: W: no-documentation navit-graphics-sdl.ppc: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [petro@Sulaco Desktop]$ These two warnings can be safely ignored. + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. +/- The package meets the Packaging Guidelines, except the following 1. The package contains *.la files. Please, remove them. 2. You dont use parallel make - please, add not, that this package can't be build with parallel make or enable it. 3. I advice you to provide README.Fedora as the Source{X}, instead of creating it in spec. Since it doesn't contain mutable parts (such as %{libdir}), then no need to create every rebuild (this also reduces size of spec to review). 4. I don't fully understand what is "graphics" and how it differs from "gui" and "osd" (which also GUI, if I understood correctly). Could you, please, explain what is it? 5. The package doesn't own /etc/navit dir. See note below. + 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. - 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. Please, add the following files as %doc: COPYING COPYRIGHT GPL-2 LGPL-2 + 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. I cannot compare with md5sum/sha256sum, but after diffing I found no changes (except in one datafile). + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See koji link above. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + The spec file handles locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. - The package must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. Unfortunately, navit contains large parts from some packages, available in Fedora. Please, remove them before building (at %prep stage). Namely: * 'navit/support' directory is full of duplicated libraries. * 'navit/map/shapefile' contains parts of shapelib * 'navit/map/poi_geodownload' contains mdbtools * it also contains librafy for operations with fibonnaci numbers under 'navit/fib-1.1' directory, but it seems that it wasn't included in Fedora yet, so it's safe to keep it. - The package must own all directories that it creates. Please, add /etc/navit as %dir. + 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. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. - The package must NOT contain any .la libtool archives. See my note above. + The package includes a %{name}.desktop file. + 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. Please, fix/comment my notes, and I'll continue. -- 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