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=528150 Christoph Wickert <cwickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #5 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-11-24 05:41:09 EDT --- REVIEW FOR 394a8a56bfaf7df638640d9ebc4b8c15 invulgotracker-0.53.1-1.fc13.src.rpm OK - MUST: rpmlint is silent: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/invulgotracker-* 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 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 (GPLv3+) OK - MUST: License field in spec file matches the actual license OK - MUST: license file included in %doc OK - MUST: spec is in American English OK - MUST: spec is legible OK - MUST: sources match the upstream source by MD5 79ac959f374ee8ab931287e35131d1d3 OK - MUST: successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on x86_64 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 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 must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. 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 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. OK - MUST: consistently uses macros OK - MUST: package contains code 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. 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. OK - MUST: The package contains a GUI application and includes a %{name}.desktop file, and that file is properly validated with desktop-file-validate 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 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. 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. OK - SHOULD: functions as described. N/A - SHOULD: Scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. 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 Issues: Timestamp of Source0 does not match timestamp of SourceURL. Please download the source again with wget or spectool -g invulgotracker.spec For more info, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps /usr/share/icons/InvulgoTracker.png should be /usr/share/pixmaps/InvulgoTracker.png or /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps/InvulgoTracker.png There should be no icons in the toplevel folder /usr/share/icons. Please patch Makefile to do this. InvulgoTracker.desktop is very sparse. Please add "ProjectManagement" as additional category to allow nested menus. You can do this if you use desktop-file-install instead of desktop-file-validate as decribed in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage BTW: The icon tag in the desktop file is "InvulgoTracker.png", but should be InvulgoTracker. This is is why you see a warning from desktop-file-validate during build: <---- desktop-file-validate /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/invulgotracker-0.53.1-1.fc13.i386/usr/share/applications/InvulgoTracker.desktop /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/invulgotracker-0.53.1-1.fc13.i386/usr/share/applications/InvulgoTracker.desktop: warning: value "InvulgoTracker.png" for key "Icon" in group "Desktop Entry" is an icon name with an extension, but there should be no extension as described in the Icon Theme Specification if the value is not an absolute path ----> For the background see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Icon_tag_in_Desktop_Files and for a fix https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/PackagingTricks#.desktop_files >From a formal point of view your package is already good as is, but please fix the remaining issues. -- 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