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=532590 --- Comment #4 from Josephine Tannhäuser <josephine.tannhauser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-11-21 08:11:29 EDT --- NOT OKAY - MUST: $ rpmlint yaws.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/erlang/lib/yaws/priv/lib/setuid_drv.so yaws.i686: W: no-soname /usr/lib/erlang/lib/yaws/priv/lib/setuid_drv.so yaws.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/erlang/lib/yaws/priv/lib/yaws_sendfile_drv.so yaws.i686: W: no-soname /usr/lib/erlang/lib/yaws/priv/lib/yaws_sendfile_drv.so yaws.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/erlang/lib/yaws/priv/lib/epam yaws.i686: E: zero-length /usr/lib/erlang/lib/yaws/src/charset.def yaws-devel.i686: W: no-documentation - You have *.so-files, so you should have a Debug-Package - zero lenght? I think this can be removed 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 OK - MUST: License field in spec file matches the actual license NOT OKAY - MUST: License files included in %doc ./test/ibrowse/LICENSE is missing (you have to rename it to avoid doubled filenames in %doc) OK - MUST: Spec is in American English OK - MUST: Spec is legible OK - MUST: Sources match the upstream source by MD5 2d6bd52af002f356d6738900a67550c5531a0b4a OK - MUST: Successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on i686 CAN'T TEST, BECAUSE I HAVEN'T AN ACCESS TO KOJI - 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. N/A - MUST: Handles locales properly with %find_lang N/A - 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 muststate 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 NOT OKAY - 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. 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: NOT OKAY, BECAUSE NOT ALL LICENSE TEXTS ARE IN A SEPERATE LICENSE FILE- 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. OK - SHOULD: Functions as described. OK - SHOULD: Scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. OK - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK - 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 NOT OKAY - Debuginfo complete You have .so-files you should have a debugpackage -- 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