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=529548 --- Comment #8 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-11-26 04:13:03 EDT --- + rpmlint is silent [petro@Sulaco SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/noarch/mingw32-libogg-1.1.4-3.fc12.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [petro@Sulaco SPECS]$ + 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 meets the Packaging Guidelines, except I don't see any reasons for uysing %defattr(0644,roor,root,0755) instead of %defattr(-,roor,root,-). Could you, please, comment this? + 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, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ sha256sum libogg-1.1.4.tar.gz* 9354c183fd88417c2860778b60b7896c9487d8f6e58b9fec3fdbf971142ce103 libogg-1.1.4.tar.gz 9354c183fd88417c2860778b60b7896c9487d8f6e58b9fec3fdbf971142ce103 libogg-1.1.4.tar.gz.1 [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture (ppc). + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No need to run ldconfig for mingw32 libraries. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + The package is not designed to be relocatable. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + 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. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. 0 No need to separate header files from main package for mingw32-related package. 0 No static libraries. 0 No need to specifically handle pkgconfig(.pc) files for mingw32 (mingw32-filesystem already contains %{_mingw32_libdir}/pkgconfig directory). 0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1). 0 No devel sub-package for mingw32 packages, since they are intended for devel entirely. 0 The mingw32 package may contain necessary .la libtool archives. This is not a blocker. 0 Not a GUI application. + 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 rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Please, comment/correct %defattr and I'll continue. -- 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