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=494695 --- Comment #12 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-11-06 08:16:45 EDT --- Builds fine now. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1791960 REVIEW: + rpmlint is not silent: [petro@Workplace ~]$ rpmlint Desktop/qutim-* qutim-debuginfo.i586: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/qutim/plugins/icq/clientidentify.h qutim-debuginfo.i586: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/qutim/src/3rdparty/qtwin/qtwin.cpp qutim-debuginfo.i586: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/src/debug/qutim/src/3rdparty/qtwin/qtwin.cpp qutim-debuginfo.i586: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/qutim/plugins/icq/buddycaps.h qutim-debuginfo.i586: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/qutim/src/3rdparty/qtwin/qtwin.h qutim-debuginfo.i586: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/src/debug/qutim/src/3rdparty/qtwin/qtwin.h qutim-debuginfo.i586: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/qutim/plugins/icq/clientidentify.cpp qutim-devel.i586: W: no-documentation qutim-icq.i586: W: no-documentation qutim-irc.i586: W: no-documentation qutim-jabber.i586: W: no-documentation qutim-mrim.i586: W: no-documentation 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 10 warnings. [petro@Workplace ~]$ These issues should be fixed at %prep stage. + 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 does not fully meet the Packaging Guidelines. There are some unlisted Requires and some unneeded calls for ldconfig. Also, and most important, I can;t find a package, who provides /usr/share/icons/mini. So, you should add the following explicit requires: hicolor-icon-theme (for /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps ) cmake (for /usr/share/cmake/Modules ) + 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 must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Since it's a pre-release, and new version was recently released, I'll wait until you update srpm to ver. 0.2. + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See koji log above. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + The package is not designed to be relocatable. - The package must own all directories that it creates. Please, add %{_libdir}/%{name} to the main package's %files section as %dir. Also add %{_includedir}/%{name} as %dir in devel sub-package. - A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. Unfortunately, you're listing %{_bindir}/%{name} twice in main package's %files section. - Permissions on files must be set properly, but there are some rpmlint complaints regarding wrong permissions. See rpmlint log posted above. + 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. 0 No extremely large documentation files. 0 Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + Header files are placed in a -devel package. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 The package does not contain library files with a suffix. + The devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} + The packages does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. + The package includes a %{name}.desktop file, and that file is properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. + 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. So, please, fix issues noted above, and I'll continue with review. -- 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