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 #13 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) <pahan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-11-10 04:01:51 EDT --- Peter, you was right - in release many changes... (In reply to comment #12) > 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. spurious-executable-perm fixed in %prep. Add BR dos2unix and fix lineendings qtwin to avoid rpmlint complain wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding. But is it really needed for files inytended for Windows (just delete break build, but it nothing doing on Linux)? > and some unneeded calls for ldconfig. Why calls to ldconfig is unneeded? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries says: Whenever possible (and feasible), Fedora Packages containing libraries should build them as shared libraries. In addition, every binary RPM package which contains shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig. > Also, and most > important, I can;t find a package, who provides /usr/share/icons/mini. Hm, yes, I too. May be I simple should delete this file? > So, you should add the following explicit requires: > > hicolor-icon-theme (for /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps ) Added. > cmake (for /usr/share/cmake/Modules ) Added to -devel subpackage. > + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. There I find some issues: Several files like (3rdparty/qtsolutions/*, plugins/plugman/libs/QZipReader) is 3dparty and have licensing similar to QT: Commercial/LGPL with exceptions in LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt/GPLv3. This is free software, but it is not under GPLv2+ license as full package. And I in frustration - can we ship it? If you can't answer on this question, please set "legal" flag for Spot. > +/- 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. I update it. Also several new plugins appeared in release. > - 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. Yes, it with comment from old times, when symlink was also been installed. Fixed. http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora11/qutim/qutim-0.2.0-1.17.fc11.src.rpm -- 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