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=524283 Simon Wesp <cassmodiah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from Simon Wesp <cassmodiah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-11-15 10:50:59 EDT --- FIX - MUST: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-12-ppc/result/* plee-the-bear.ppc: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libbear_communication.so libbear_communication.so plee-the-bear.ppc: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libbear_debug.so libbear_debug.so plee-the-bear.ppc: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libbear_generic_items.so libbear_generic_items.so plee-the-bear.ppc: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libplee_the_bear.so libplee_the_bear.so plee-the-bear.ppc: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libbear_input.so libbear_input.so plee-the-bear.ppc: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libbear_engine.so libbear_engine.so plee-the-bear.ppc: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libbear-editor.so libbear-editor.so plee-the-bear.ppc: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libbear_visual.so libbear_visual.so plee-the-bear.ppc: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libbear_gui.so libbear_gui.so plee-the-bear.ppc: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libbear_time.so libbear_time.so plee-the-bear.ppc: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libbear_audio.so libbear_audio.so plee-the-bear.ppc: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libbear_universe.so libbear_universe.so 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 12 errors, 0 warnings. OK - MUST: Named according to the Package Naming Guidelines OK - MUST: Spec file name matches the base package %{name} OK - MUST: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines OK - MUST: Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines: FIX - MUST: License field in spec file doesn't matches the actual license: License: GPLv2+ and CC-BY-SA OK - MUST: License files included in %doc OK - MUST: Spec is in American English OK - MUST: Spec is legible OK - MUST: Sources match the upstream source by MD5 5bb295d36aa92aa7c84e3fceda73e47b OK - MUST: Successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on ppc N/A - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. OK - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. OK - MUST: Handles locales properly with %find_lang OK - 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. N/A - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review. OK - MUST: Owns all directories that it creates OK - MUST: No duplicate files in the %files listing OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly, includes %defattr(...) OK - MUST: Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}. OK - MUST: Consistently uses macros OK - MUST: Package contains code, or permissable content N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix, then library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package. Doesn't make sense for this package N/A - MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A - 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. OK - MUST: Package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot}. OK - MUST: All filenames valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items: OK - SHOULD: Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file. N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. OK - SHOULD: Builds in mock. OK - SHOULD: Compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures. N/A - SHOULD: Functions as described. FIX - SHOULD: Scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. update icon cache scriplet is missing https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg N/A - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. Other items: OK - latest stable version OK - SourceURL valid OK - Compiler flags ok OK - Debuginfo complete FIX - Timestamps INSTALL="install -p" SOURCE0 original = 03 Sep 2009 02:32:34 CEST SOURCE0 package = 16 Sep 2009 00:01 CEST -- 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