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=525927 --- Comment #3 from Kalev Lember <kalev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-12-01 09:58:15 EDT --- Thomas, I already got the spec and srpm from pkgdb / koji, no need to duplicate those here. Fedora review incollector-1.2-1.fc13.src.rpm 2009-12-01 + OK ! needs attention rpmlint says: incollector.i686: E: no-binary incollector.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. All these rpmlint warnings/errors are expected for mono packages and can be ignored. + rpmlint output + package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines + specfile name matches base package name + package meets Packaging Guidelines + The stated license (GPLv2+) is a Fedora approved license ! The license doesn't match actual package license Every source file contains the following lines: * Copyright (C) 2006-2007 Marcin Krystian Krzywonos * License: GNU/GPL version 2 I think this means that the license tag should read 'GPLv2' + The package contains the license file (COPYING) + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible + Upstream sources match sources in the srpm. md5sum: 6701ac13da29119cd6719be3edcf30aa incollector-1.2.tar.gz 6701ac13da29119cd6719be3edcf30aa Download/incollector-1.2.tar.gz + Package builds in koji n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires look sane + Spec file handles locales properly n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun + Package doesn't bundle copies of system libraries + Does not use Prefix: /usr + Package owns all directories it creates + No duplicate files in %files + Proper permissions and %files has %defattr + %clean contains rm -rf %{buildroot} + Consistent use of macros + Package must contain code or permissible content + Package must contain code or permissible content n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + Files marked %doc should not affect package n/a Header files should be in -devel n/a Static libraries should be in -static n/a Packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' n/a Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base + Packages should not contain libtool .la files + Proper .desktop file handling + Package doesn't own files or directories already owned by other packages + %install begins with rm -rf %{buildroot} + all filename are valid UTF-8 ! The following pushd/popd commands in the spec file without anything in between seem useless and should be removed: pushd po popd ! You have the following sed command to fix lib64 dir: sed -i 's|/usr/lib|%{_libdir}|' %{name} I think a proper way to do that is fix script.in instead (that's something you could also send upstream): -exec @MONO@ @prefix@/lib/incollector/incollector.exe $MONO_EXTRA_ARGS "$@" +exec @MONO@ @pkglibdir@/incollector.exe $MONO_EXTRA_ARGS "$@" Attaching the patch to the bug report in a separate file too. ! Consider removing %{_datadir}/pixmaps/%{name}.ico at the end of %install. I very much doubt anything uses .ico files in Fedora when there's a matching .png file in %{_datadir}/pixmaps/. -- 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