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=225901 Adam Tkac <atkac@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Adam Tkac <atkac@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-12-15 06:16:02 EDT --- Review of inn-2.5.1-2.fc13: Legend: "+" OK, "-" Not OK. + MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines + MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec + MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines + MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . - MUST(1): The License field in spec match the actual license + MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file must be included in %doc + MUST: The spec file written in American English + MUST: The spec file for the package is legible + MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL + MUST: The package successfully compile + MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires + MUST: The spec file handle locales properly + MUST: Every package which stores shared library files in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun + MUST: Packages does not bundle copies of system libraries + MUST: Package own all directories that it creates + MUST: Package does not list a file more than once in the spec file + MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line - MUST(2): Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) + MUST: Package use macros consistently + MUST: Package contains code, or permissable content + MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage + MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application + MUST: Header files in a -devel package + MUST: Static libraries in a -static package + MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' + MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package + MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} + MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built + MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file + MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages + MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) + MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. 1 - After inspection it seems valid license should be "GPLv2+ and BSD and MIT and Public Domain" 2 - remove spurious "rm -f files.list files.main files.devel files.inews" line from %clean section Please fix appropriate rpmlint warnings and summarize rest of them + explain why they are invalid. Please add "Requires: %{name}-libs = %{version}-%{release}" to -devel subpackage (and probably to the main inn package as well) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review